Jazz Theory Resources by Bert Ligon VS Jazzology by Robert Rawlins

[bfgkim]

I am thinking about getting a theory book. I already have Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory book...
I want to have one more jazz theory book and I am not sure which one I should get... Any ideas out there?

[JonnyPac]

I've got the thread for you! Check here:

Levine: Jazz Theory Book VS Rawlins: Jazzology and Ligon: Jazz Theory Resources - Jazz Bulletin Board

Both are better than Levine, IMO. Bert's vol 1 and 2 are the best on the market to my knowledge.

[bfgkim]

Well, do you think it's better to get jazz theory resources and jazzology?
Or you think it would be fine to get only jazz theory resources?

[konstantine]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

I've got the thread for you! Check here:

Levine: Jazz Theory Book VS Rawlins: Jazzology and Ligon: Jazz Theory Resources - Jazz Bulletin Board

Both are better than Levine, IMO. Bert's vol 1 and 2 are the best on the market to my knowledge.

Jonny, you really dont like Levine's book!!

IMHO while its a great book, its not for the novice. One needs to have at least some experience playing jazz and enough theory/harmony knowledge to get the most out of his book. Its not a methodology, its his personal approach to Jazz.

I know that you (and others) think that the title is missleading, but its not fair to diminish a really great book for a bad choosen title.

Btw, I have both Bert's Theory Books and still I think that Levin's book is a great one for the advanced jazz musician who needs to expand his knowledge while on the other hand Bert's books are for any level. But if you have studied jazz for some time, Bert's 1st volume is basic, execept maybe chapters III for jazz rhytms (though I prefer Bergonzi's Melodic Rhythms) and X for Melodic Outlines (and Mr. Ligon has another book dedicated to that, I haven't checked it out yet though).

taken from your AAJ thread:
"I don't doubt Levine's skill, enthusiasm, and deep bag of tricks. I just fell for the title at an impressionable age when I was beginning my self-study. Assuming that buying a few real books and TJTB and then listening, playing, and gigging would teach me the things I needed, I missed out on some essentials. By learning RNA thru observing Levines uses, I never got secondary dominants, parallel/related/neighboring keys or anything functional besides misc ii-V7-I's in seemingly random keys. You both know that I've been activity reworking my knowledge by reading, asking, and trying to hear things from a mainstream view. I've revised 40 pages of my book and will be releasing the new version in Q3 2011. I will also make all of the pages available to print online for those with my original editions. I am dedicated to self-improvement and sharing anything helpful and inspiring that I come across. It was really a rude awaking when "the jazz bible" turned out to be just a collection of a jazz pianists goodies."

While I can understand your feelings, and by reading some of your posts, here and at AAJ, I really get the feeling that you are a great guy, full of enthusiasm about learning and sharing Jazz. The fact that you have put all your belief in Levin's book and then that you put yourself at the educator chair and wrote a book based mostly on one resource its really your own fault, not Levine's.


I hope that you wont find my post offending in any way, this is not my purpose. The whole point I try to make is that giving a bad review on a great book because of its title its just not fair.

[konstantine]

Originally Posted by bfgkim

Well, do you think it's better to get jazz theory resources and jazzology?
Or you think it would be fine to get only jazz theory resources?

I dont think that you need to get both Jazzology and Bert's Books, not together at least. I have to say that I dont have any personal experience with Jazzology, but I think that Ligon's books can keep you occupied for many years, they are very well written and contain material for any level, they are really great theory resources for your jazz study as the title implies.

On the other hand, maybe Jazzology is written in a more apealing way for you.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by bfgkim

Well, do you think it's better to get jazz theory resources and jazzology?
Or you think it would be fine to get only jazz theory resources?

Bert Ligon is all you need, IMHO.

[JonnyPac]

There have been a lot of ugly threads here over Levine-isms. Post the word "avoid note" and be ready to be stoned! It never ends.

Please read this completely before addressing my reviews or my own guitar book...

MTO 6.1: Rawlins, Review of Levine
By Robert Rawlins (Jazzology)

[bfgkim]

Thanks for the responses guys!

[wizard3739]

Thanks Jonny, for the reference to Rawlins' candid review of Levines' theory book. I ordered Jazzology tonight to have another look at a reference book for jazz theory.

wiz

[konstantine]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

There have been a lot of ugly threads here over Levine-isms. Post the word "avoid note" and be ready to be stoned! It never ends.

Please read this completely before addressing my reviews or my own guitar book...

MTO 6.1: Rawlins, Review of Levine
By Robert Rawlins (Jazzology)

Thanks for your response,

I have read this review, and I just re-read it for you. It doesnt prove anything rather than that this book its not aiming to the in-experienced student neither the theorist. "Attempting to use this book as a text for any level of study would require careful selection and shuffling of material." and "Clearly, theorists are not Levine's intended audience. " R.R. said.

I also know that there are quite a few anti-Levine posts here and at AJJ, but also there are as many positive posts.

Anyway, the review points out things that Levine didnt include it his book or wrote something that R.R. dont agree with, yet there are great musicians that think with that way and with great results. Without any attempt to defend Levine or agree/disagree with Rawlins, the review doesnt state that the book is worthless, it just not "the jazz bible" you thought it was.

And we come back to the title, if the title was a better choosen one, maybe less people would have had issues with it. Levine's book is a great one, just not THE book to get to answer your theoritical questions. Its a book from a player's perspective on how he understands, practices and performs music. Therefore, a good understanding of functional harmony is needed in order to get the most out of his book.

"Levine gives practical advice on practicing and developing improvisational skills, while evident throughout is his genuine love for the music and his vast listening and performing experience. If one's interest in jazz theory leans toward procedures and methods, this book fits the bill perfectly."


Whould I advice someone to get and rely strictly on Levine's Book for his studies? Of course not, he'll miss a great deal of how music works and functions. It could have been a great study for any experienced player and to most people would really offer something if they see it from this perspective rather than diminishing it all together.

That's what I believe anyway.

Marry Christmas to you

Konstantine


PS I think its better for this conversation to continue in private, if you think it needs a continuation.

[gersdal]

Originally Posted by konstantine

I think its better for this conversation to continue in private, if you think it needs a continuation.

Please don't keep it private. It's interesting to follow the discussion, and you write well.

I keep a rather large library of books, including all mentioned, and I find that to be the most valuable way for me; to seek information from as many sources as possible.

[JonnyPac]

I'm actually not interested in a continuation at this time. In 2000 when I bought Levine's book it was THE BOOK; now things are different (thought it gets called THE JAZZ BIBLE very often still). It has merit, I dig parts of it, I just like other methods and spins on jazz theory much much more now that I know of them. This is a tiresome topic for me. I'm interested in moving forward... Next book I discuss will be Forward Motion!!

Happy holidays, I will be busy and away a lot this week. Catch you guys in 2012.

[Sphere]

The Levine book is great, any criticism I've heard of read about it usually speaks more about the person criticizing it that of Levine's work (which is monumental).
Perhaps the problem is indeed with the level of understanding of basic music theory of these attempting the book. For example, scales are always understood as a pool of notes to pick from, not as a sequence of notes to play. I find it slightly funny when some authors choose terms such as 'pitch collection', because that's basically a definition of 'scale'. Levine makes it clear that's what means very early in the book.
Same with the 'avoid notes'. He often emphasizes that it's not a set in stone rule but rather a suggestion, and uses quotation marks whenever he uses the term. So what's the big deal?
The thing to keep in mind is that music theory is a descriptive, not prescriptive science. It's about finding ways of explaining how things are done, not how they are supposed to be done.

[danjw]

It's an fascinating aspect of human nature, the fact that we build people up, only to knock them down.
The Levine backlash is like a snowball and I'm guilty of being caught in it, but like someone else said, when i first picked it up it blew my mind. Not because it's any more correct than Ligon or Stienel or whomever. But because It's just quite well written and full of tidbits.
Granted one needs an existing knowledge of theory. But that's a given when coming to jazz surely?!
Too easy to get bogged down in this stuff I think... time spent typing could be time spent playing.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Sphere

The Levine book is great, any criticism I've heard of read about it usually speaks more about the person criticizing it that of Levine's work (which is monumental).
Perhaps the problem is indeed with the level of understanding of basic music theory of these attempting the book. For example, scales are always understood as a pool of notes to pick from, not as a sequence of notes to play. I find it slightly funny when some authors choose terms such as 'pitch collection', because that's basically a definition of 'scale'. Levine makes it clear that's what means very early in the book.
Same with the 'avoid notes'. He often emphasizes that it's not a set in stone rule but rather a suggestion, and uses quotation marks whenever he uses the term. So what's the big deal?
The thing to keep in mind is that music theory is a descriptive, not prescriptive science. It's about finding ways of explaining how things are done, not how they are supposed to be done.

It's nice to read a practical viewpoint on this. Personally, my assessment of any book or concept is based solely on the effect it has on my understanding of music and how it relates to the guitar. Third party critiques of a book or method are mostly irrelevant and ussually nothing more than academic posturing.

I found that Knowing every theoretical concept is not necessary and many are not even relevant to the instrument. Personally, I treat theory books as short stories and not complete novels . If I run into a problem, I dig around until I find a nice strory that offers the most robust solution, which ussually is found in one ore two chapters or even pages. If it is well presented, the concept nicely dissolves into my overall understanding and produces new sounds or effects, if not, it vaporizes and dissipates like a bad smell.

We need to always remember that the listener can only hear the sounds of the guitar and not what is rattling around in the musician's head (although, at times, that may be all too obvious. )

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Brenda856

Well, do you think it's better to get jazz theory resources and jazzology?
Or you think it would be fine to get only jazz theory resources?

Ligon would be my choice, but really its all the same stuff in a different bag. Pick one and work with it long enough to see if it fits for you. After all, its only a book.

[JonR]

My view of Levine is much the same as JonnyPac's. When I bought it (back in the 90), it really was - as its title claims - "The Jazz Theory Book"; there were no others. (Disregarding a few by Jerry Coker, Jamey Aebersold, etc, which were more practical books than overarching conceptual works.)

I was hugely impressed with it: the research backing it up (the discography and listening lists he gives) is staggering; and every concept is illustrated with a quotes from jazz recordings by famous players, which is the most convincing aspect of the book. The impression given is that the whole thing is based (as good theory should be) on what jazz musicians actually DO.

However, I was a relative beginner when I first read it; or rather first started reading it - that was around 15 years ago and I still haven't fully worked through it all! "Relative beginner" means I had played jazz on and off (never very seriously) for some 30 years before then (no lessons), and a little more seriously (studying in group workshops) for maybe 10 years before. So I was ready to be impressed, and to have my woolly, haphazard understanding of jazz clarified. The book indeed impressed: as well as the authority of Levine's obvious experience, the book is well written and well designed: easy to read and understand, given some very basic prior knowledge of theory (which I had).

But my feelings steadily changed over the years. Although it was intellectually stimulating, it had no real effect on how I played jazz. Then around 5 years ago, I encountered Ed Byrne's writings on the allaboutjazz website. That was like a real light going on. I suddenly realised the disconnect I'd had between how I played (my actual practice of jazz) and how I understood Levine. Byrne was talking about improvising jazz in a way that seemed obvious - in a way Levine never did. Byrne was all about linear improvisation: melodic phrasing and development, and voice-leading in harmony. Hey, I thought: that's what I do all the time! It's the way I've always played.

(see recent thread here: http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/impro...-ed-byrne.html)

I realised that what was missing from Levine was any discussion of functional harmony - the notion of chord progression. I took that for granted, and regarded Levine as talking about something beyond or above that. But in fact he was talking about another kind of jazz entirely: modal jazz. I'd had a sense of revelation when I first read his ideas about chords and scales merging into one another: the one being an expression of the other. It didn't occur to me that wasn't how most music worked. (I was seduced by his obvious authority.)
I realised why I hadn't been able to incorporate any of his thinking into my music: it didn't apply. When I played modal jazz, yes (to some extent) it did. And it also made sense of the fact (not noticed until that point) that the music he drew his illustrations from was mostly modern jazz, post 1960s. IOW, post-modal jazz. Few quotes came from earlier jazz (and when they did, they were always interpreted from Levine's chord-scale-theory (CST) point of view).
That would have been fine if he'd introduced the whole thing by explaining that: that he was addressing jazz (in his view) as it was played in that post-modal period. That he was (just about) ignoring all jazz up to that point. Very little on pre-modal jazz, except through the lens of his chord-scale-theory viewpoint.

Very late, I came to realise what should have been obvious all along: that chord-scale theory was NOT how the great jazz improvisers (before 1959) had ever played. In a way, I knew it all the time: I'd played swing and hot jazz in my youth, just copying what I heard on records. If I'd had to put together any "theory" about how it worked (and I didn't), I'd have said melody, key and chord tones. It wasn't rocket science; it was pretty obvious what people like Django, Charlie Christian, Charlie Parker, etc, were doing: arpeggiating chords, adding diatonic passing notes, chromatic approaches, ornaments, etc. No mystery at all.

Levine had introduced a different way of thinking, to be sure. CST is seductive, from one (narrow) perspective). It seems to open everything up. But - at least as applied to most of the jazz I'd been used to - it was irrelevant and useless. It opened up too much. It was like not seeing the wood (melody and progression) for the trees (individual chords).
And I found that even in modal jazz my old instincts served me better. Of course, I realise this is largely a personal thing: I happen to enjoy melody and rhythm more than harmonic complexity and colour. I like to connect chords, rather than take each one in isolation - even in a modal piece where the chords can be isolated.

I still wouldn't say Levine's book is no good, far from it: it's the best written jazz theory book I've seen. But its bias has to be acknowledged. Given that CST bias, it's a hugely valuable book.
In comparison, Rawlins "Jazzology" is a much duller read, much less appealing. More like a school text book. Of course it addresses the huge omissions in Levine's book, and does that pretty well. But its big disadvantage is it contains no real quotes from jazz recordings; all the musical examples are written by the authors, which makes it seem to lack authority. Why should we believe these guys? Where's the evidence?

I haven't read Ligon's book, but I have to say it sounds good.

[gersdal]

Originally Posted by JonR

My view of Levine is much the same as JonnyPac's. When I bought it (back in the 90), it really was - as its title claims - "The Jazz Theory Book"; there were no others. (Disregarding a few by Jerry Coker, Jamey Aebersold, etc, which were more practical books than overarching conceptual works.)

And disregarding George Russell's "Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization" from 1953 that is the basis for theory behind improvising based on functional harmony according to many

Besides: I do fully agree with you Jon, but there will be no surprise in that ... as you've tutored me in this topic by your postings over the years.

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by JonR

"Jazzology" is a much duller read...its big disadvantage is it contains no real quotes from jazz recordings... I haven't read Ligon's book, but I have to say it sounds good.

You're in for a real treat. Ligon's stuff is loaded with exerpts from solos--Tom Harrell, Bill Evans, Adderly, Clifford, etc. etc. It will keep you busy for a long time. Ligon is equally skilled as a guitarist & pianist. Text is written for the musician who undertands functional theory. You'll dig it...

[Jazzaluk]

Excellent post JonR. CST is indeed very seductive and it fits nicely in the teacher's lesson plan briefcase (which I think really accounts for its popularity), but it seems to always lead to a perennial complaint that improvised lines begin to sound like scales.

Those that get this feeling usually start digging around for other approaches that look to chord movement and melodic embellishment to develop more interesting lines. Ed Byrnes has a great escape from CST.

When I got the CST fever, I decided to de-emphasize pure theory and start learning tunes. I listened to Ben Webster and Lester Young and Ed Bickert to try and learn how they turned melody into improv - I have enjoyed the instrument much more since.

I have also studied Ed Byrnes, Hal Galper and Barry Harris, who all seem to emphasize motion and melody over "what-scale-works-where". The only thing I'm not sure of is whether I was attracted to them based on there own merit or whether I was looking for a CST remedy. Maybe Levine is prerequisite to better appreciating other approaches.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

You're in for a real treat. Ligon's stuff is loaded with exerpts from solos--Tom Harrell, Bill Evans, Adderly, Clifford, etc. etc. It will keep you busy for a long time. Ligon is equally skilled as a guitarist & pianist. Text is written for the musician who undertands functional theory. You'll dig it...

True that!!

THANK YOU, JonR, for the post! I was feeling cornered again. My fist 6 months on this site I got pounded into the ground for mentioning pro-CST modal Levine-isms, and now I've spent the second 6 months being challenged for looking beyond Levine and promoting a linear meets CST view (now that I know better). In 2000 there was Levine and JA play-alongs- now there is much more, and many of them are responses to earlier attempts to explain difficult concepts.

This is from a private correspondence with Bert (I will remove it if it causes a stink):

There seemed to be, and maybe still is, two major approaches to jazz education.


(1)
"Here's a chord and here's it's scale. Next measure. Here's a chord and here's it's scale. Next measure. Avoid this note."
(2)
"Just play what you feel." Improvisation is creating with little or no preparation.


But my listening and transcribing seem to tell a different story. There were of course key areas, but there were not any notes that anyone seemed to avoid. I didn't experience that dorian was hipper than aeolian, or that a mode of melodic minor was always the choice the cool kids were making. I also did not get the idea that Red Garland, Clifford Brown or Charlie Parker could play that way with that much command of "playing what they felt" without a great deal of preparation.


So I made it a goal to find some middle ground for jazz (or any creative music) education. Some how address the details of the harmonic implications to prepare someone to "play what they feel."


I had heard that some guitarists didn't like the title of the book, Connecting Chords with Linear Harmony. My own friends make fun of it because it's not some sexy "learn to play jazz in five easy lessons" kind of a title. There never is any discussion of connections between chords in the chord/scale books. But all great soloists seem to connect each chord. I got the idea for the title from an interview with Dizzy Gillespie. He talked about how Sonny Rollins connected the chords with great lines. That's what I was trying to explain - how to make those linear connections - to create harmonic implications with lines. Music happens in time in a linear way. Seems like that's the only way to discuss it. Ignoring the linear aspects of music would be like a physicist ignoring time - the fourth dimension.


I am usually amused and sometimes irritated when an educator makes some proclamation that one sound is inherently hipper than another. I remember the first time someone told me that harmonic minor wasn't "hip." I started banging out Stravinky's Rite of Spring chord - all the notes of the harmonic minor scale. Pretty hip 98 years later. I like to think of my harmonic color choices like a painter's pallet or a chef's spice rack. One set of colors or spices are not in and of themselves better than others - they provide choices for combinations. Some work well with others and not in another context. Sometimes neutral colors or spices pave the way for some more dramatic choice later. I will deliberately save a colorful sound choice for a 2nd or 3rd chorus in a passage of a tune just for the boost it may give (for those who are still listening to my 3rd chorus!). If I used a particularly colorful and surprising sound every time in the progression and for every chorus, it is no longer colorful or surprising.

I've done a lot of homework in the last year; reading like a madman and getting questions answered by knowledgeable online educators (forums and email correspondence with Hal and Bert). I'm over dealing with any fundamentalist views on music theory- there are a lot of "right" answers and common practices that vary in terminology and methodology. I'm ok with that, in fact, I find it nice and liberating.

[konstantine]

Great posts everyone, but still, what I cannot understand is why should somebody choose one approach and ignore any other.

Thinking with scales, doesent mean you cant also think voice leading, guide tones, across the bar line phrasing, chord tones, non harmonic approaches to them, etc.

I have Bert Ligon's books and I really like them, eye openers for sure. I have a few books from Ed which I also like, his essays on "Speaking of Jazz" are a must read for every jazz student and musician. I have Levine's book which is also a great one and quite unique. I have some Bergonzi's books and his method is most appealing to me. I also have aquired many many books and I have found great ideas in most of them. There are really only a few books that I have and I can say that they suck and these are mostly lick-books and I have learned to avoid them.

To me it seems more logical to try to get the most out of every piece of information that I can find, linear thinking has its strengths and weaknesses, but so does CST and modal thinking. When a great musician like Levine or Ed decides to write a textbook with his way of thinking on music it can only be a good thing. Then, if I find it appealing and can get something from it thats another thing to discuss.

Some anti-CST folks badtalk about it but then they talk about Hexachords, Octachords, 7 note pitch collections and etc, isnt it a bit hypocritical?


IMO most of today's great improvisers use a plethora of approaches.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by konstantine

Thinking with scales, doesent mean you cant also think voice leading, guide tones, across the bar line phrasing, chord tones, non harmonic approaches to them, etc.

IMO most of today's great improvisers use a plethora of approaches.

BINGO!

[Sphere]

Levine hasn't introduced CST to jazz pedagogy, the method has been around much longer than that, via Russell, Berklee or even Abersold.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by gersdal

And disregarding George Russell's "Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization" from 1953 that is the basis for theory behind improvising based on functional harmony according to many

Well, after the event, if so. The concepts in the LCC didn't really fllter down to jazz players until the late 50s, if then. IOW, if it's applied to improvisation in functional harmony (which characterized all jazz harmony before 1959), it's with hindsight, and therefore of debatable value.
After all, the LCC defines itself as a totally new way (for the period) of looking at concepts of consonance and resolution, of tonality itself. It's not the way jazz musicians thought before the modal era - or even much after it, IMO.
It may be that it offers an alternative way of looking at older jazz - as well as an expanded, fertile area for new explorations. But I prefer to contemplate how (say) Charlie Parker actually thought, by listening to (and looking at) his music. You don't need the LCC for that, any more than Parker did.

As I'm sure you've seen me say many times, chord-scale theory (which is arguably one of the byproducts of the LCC's way of thinking) is often misapplied to pre-modal jazz.

Originally Posted by gersdal

Besides: I do fully agree with you Jon, but there will be no surprise in that ... as you've tutored me in this topic by your postings over the years.

Thanks - but I would of course, re-direct you to MY teachers: Ed Byrne and Hal Galper to name two influential web presences, but mainly all the jazz musicians I've ever listened to. (Too many to name, but probably Django Reinhardt and Thelonius Monk at the front.)
(I have had personal face-to-face jazz tutors occasionally, but never for more than one or two group lessons: Dave Cliff, John Etheridge, John Parricelli, Bobby Wellins, Rufus Reid, are the only names you might know.)

[JonR]

Originally Posted by konstantine

Great posts everyone, but still, what I cannot understand is why should somebody choose one approach and ignore any other.

Thinking with scales, doesent mean you cant also think voice leading, guide tones, across the bar line phrasing, chord tones, non harmonic approaches to them, etc.

Very true. The reason I'm down on CST (inasmuch as I am, which is not totally!) is I regard scales as low-level information. The "music" happens at levels above that, from intervals to chords to melodic shape, and rhythm of course. As I said before, thinking in scales is thinking about the bark on the trees instead of seeing the forest. It's looking with blinkers on (or blinders as I think you say in US of A).

I mean, of course, one can see the big picture as well as the detail, as you're saying! It's only the crude approach, or a simplistic misunderstanding, that promotes CST as the only (or even best) way of thinking.

The problem, seems to me, is that there's a common attitude that CST offers some kind of "secret", as if it's a key shortcut to being able to improvise jazz. It seems like a failsafe "system" of rules one only has to absorb and follow to be able to tackle any jazz piece. It may not be any teacher's fault, but it's a seductive notion to a beginner who is intimidated by jazz. But of course it doesn't lead to good music. It leads to what Joe Henderson called solos that "sound like the index of a book".
It encourages the notion that a jazz tune is an assault course one just has to get through, unscathed. "Phew, managed to play the right scale on all the chords! I did it!" (Yes, I've been through that kind of workshop exercise too...)

Originally Posted by konstantine

To me it seems more logical to try to get the most out of every piece of information that I can find, linear thinking has its strengths and weaknesses, but so does CST and modal thinking. When a great musician like Levine or Ed decides to write a textbook with his way of thinking on music it can only be a good thing. Then, if I find it appealing and can get something from it thats another thing to discuss.

Right. In a sense, the only problem with Levine's book is its title: "THE jazz theory book". Bound to mislead. "A jazz theory book" would be better.

Originally Posted by konstantine

Some anti-CST folks badtalk about it but then they talk about Hexachords, Octachords, 7 note pitch collections and etc, isnt it a bit hypocritical?

Well, you won't get me talking like that!
I DO think it's useful to think of chordal harmony as a hierarchical stack. That can (I guess) mean a 7-note chord-scale in the sense of 1-3-5-7-9-11-13. But not all the notes are equivalent, that's the point. (And the 5 chromatics have a role to play too.)
And I would still think more in a linear (horizontal) way than the harmonic (vertical) way. Both dimensions matter, naturally, for the whole picture. I just like to put linearity in the foreground, because I've personally found it more productive and musical that way round. (Perhaps because linearity includes rhythm and timing, as well as pitch values.)

Originally Posted by konstantine

IMO most of today's great improvisers use a plethora of approaches.

Quite. It's pretty much impossible to disentangle the modal aspects from the functional aspects in modern jazz harmony. Since the 1960s, it's been clear that jamming the two together produces lots of fertile offshoots. The only reason to consider them separately (and to look at individual approaches like CST, linearity, "let the melody be your guide", etc) is to appreciate how the history developed, how we got to where we are. It's good to know what kind of giants we're standing on the shoulders of...

[JonnyPac]

Good post!

I think using scales as pools of notes with which one can mine for interesting (and modal and/or functional) sounds is 100% ok. You just have to be thoroughgoing and make it work and understand the details within. I'm starting to think this "CST produces lazy sloppy soloists" argument is a straw man- I don't hear any method directly producing any level of musicianship. Put boldly, anyone can suck and anyone can become a well balanced musician. Deep thinking and applied concepts, exposure to common practice (listening), and about 10,000 hours in the shed is what it takes, IMHO. No particular school or method, just life. Doing it all the way and making the pieces fit together with your mind and body. A collection of reputable books can help guide our efforts, that's all.

"The one beef I have with the "chord scale movement" is that it sort of suggests all seven notes are equally cool, when in fact that's really not the case. There really are usually four notes you want to land on that are the really, really, good ones. Then there are the others you want to get through and some you barely want to touch them. That degree of weight thing is usually not discussed because it is usually presented in the form of modal thinking rather than voice leading. My advice to people is yes, learn the chord scales but also make sure you can solo using just the chord tones. A big chunk of early jazz history was largely improvising using chord tones and improvising around the melody. Those are two valuable entry points" -Pat Metheny

From my book:

It is a common pitfall for students of chord-scale equivalency theories to give every note within a chord-scale equal treatment. There is a tonal hierarchy that must be recognized. The core triad needs to be thought of as the lower structure, the seventh as what I call the “gateway” tone, and the other chord-tones as “upper-structures” or “extensions”. Every note besides the core triad may be treated as a “tendency tone” (meaning a tone that is unstable and naturally tends to resolve either upward or downward to a more stable tone) depending on the immediate context. “Avoid” notes or “handle with care" notes are the most unstable tones within each chord-scale. Tonal hierarchies within each chord-scale can fluctuate depending on the harmonic conditions of the music at hand. Use your ear to determine the level of complexity that is appropriate.

[gingerjazz]

Well if Pat metheny says learn chord tones ,then thats what im gonna do,i reckon he knows whats going on.

[JonR]

Uh-huh - what PM said is exactly what I would say (and often have) myself. And of course what Jonny also says! (Great minds... )

Like Jonny says, it's all about tonal hierarchy. My personal view is of three levels (covering all 12 notes):

1. The 4 notes PM refers to as "really really good ones". I don't know if he'd agree, but I'd say this was the 1-3-5-7 of the chord (or 1-3-5-6 if it's a 6th). You can't fail with those.
But if you ONLY play those, that's arpeggios, and it will eventually sound stilted or boring, UNLESS you have a fast moving sequence with lots of interesting chords. (Most of Charlie Parker's melodies and solos were largely arpeggios, with small embellishments, but he was playing over fast changes.)

2. What Johnny calls "upper structures" or "extensions" (I'd just say the latter). These are additional notes (usually no more than 3, sometimes less) that will sound good if targeted over the chord: can be held or stressed without sounding bad, and will usually have a characteristic emotional impact, enhancing any function or mood the chord already has. They are usually - but not always - the remaining diatonic notes of the current key. They will in any case act as good passing notes between the 1-3-5-7 of level 1.
I don't necessarily agree these are "tendency tones", in the sense of unstable tones with an implication towards resolution: they can be, but don't have to be. (You can usually hang on to a 9 without having to move it anywhere; #9, 11, #11 and 13 have more sense of tension, but still don't always require resolution.)

Level 1 plus level 2 results (pretty much) in "chord-scale theory". They are all "inside" notes (even if an occasional one is outside the key, it would sound "inside" on the chord). But the difference between the levels is significant. (And I would say diatonic key relationships can have more weight than consonance-with-chord relationships. Eg, the notion of a chromatic #11 on a tonic maj7 chord works as an "inside" chord extension, but a P11 may often be preferred as melodic solo note.)
And I'd agree with Jonny that my level 1 could be split into the triad and the 7th - because the 7th adds significant functional colour to the triad: a very important note (at least in jazz), but arguably not a "base level" tone.

3. All the other notes . These are what jazz players call "outside" notes, and usually chromatic (outside the key), and usually sound bad if held over the chord, because they make awkward intervals with other chord tones. But they can all be used in passing between notes of level #1 or level #2. (One of these notes is recognized in the theory of "bebop scales" - but in practice you can use pretty much any chromatic passing note.)
They don't have to be on weak beats either: they can be accented, as long as they are resolved before too long.
(Even there, there are exceptions: as long ago as 1938, Django Reinhardt was playing a tune with melodic phrases which began on accented chromatic approaches and ended on the unresolved b5 of a major tonic chord. Listen to "Appel Direct". It's dissonant, of course, but the dissonance is the point.)

[gingerjazz]

Hey jonr ,after reading through,thinking through,watching tuition videos and talking to other jazz musicians and disregarding what does not seem to work for me,i have pretty much distilled every thing down to what you say above,but you say it so much better than i ever could.Peace.