-
Yes, but that still sounds like a no-brainer. Of course we all want to "strive to be at that point". Of course we want to be able to just play what we feel, instinctively, automatically.
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
It's a little like a coach saying to his soccer team "To win this game, you need to score more goals than the other guys. OK, now go and do it..."
That's not advice.
Sure - it's important to stress that, at least, to deal with the myths about "talent". It takes time, energy, commitment. Originally Posted by JakeAcci
But a beginner will still want to know "what kind of work? I know the aim well enough. What steps exactly do I need to take?"
I'm not saying that you (as a teacher) wouldn't take them through those steps! It just seems a waste of time to talk about the end goal that we all know about; we all know where we want to get to: intuitive musical communication with the audience. We can take that as read.
-
04-19-2012 03:38 PM
-
I disagree that it's so well understood; that it's a no brainer. Originally Posted by JonR
Yes, but that still sounds like a no-brainer. Of course we all want to "strive to be at that point". Of course we want to be able to just play what we feel, instinctively, automatically.
It's a little like a coach saying to his soccer team "To win this game, you need to score more goals than the other guys. OK, now go and do it..." That's not advice.
Sure - it's important to stress that, at least, to deal with the myths about "talent". It takes time, energy, commitment.
But a beginner will still want to know "what kind of work? I know the aim well enough. What steps exactly do I need to take?"
I'm not saying that you (as a teacher) wouldn't take them through those steps! It just seems a waste of time to talk about the end goal that we all know about; we all know where we want to get to: intuitive musical communication with the audience. We can take that as read.
I think that players often get acclaim (especially from younger musicians) for playing fast, doing something complicated, to be flashier and flashier, more complex, etc.
I don't at all think that many beginning players understand what I describe as a goal.
-
I think music
Its like food for the body (but music is for the soul)
If you wanna create it like a great chef does
you gotta learn all the basics really well
how to make stock , a roux sauce I dunno ,
you know , all the techniques Arps scales etc
Then theres the Classic dishes/tunes
you got to get them down too
Some of us are natually gifted Chefs or musicians some not (me)
but it can be learned
you just got to do the work , repetition
What was the question again ?
Does anyone here get like stoned listening to great music ?
Cool innit ?
I'm gonna play A foggy day now
-
Everybody must get stoned! Buds are essential for authentic jazzing Originally Posted by pingu
-
Ok... so you have advanced players with different views etc... Advanced players still have voids in their skills and almost always have voids in their knowledge of theory, harmony etc...
Most advanced or pros... whatever you want to call players like myself, that can show up at any gig... read whatever, use our ears ... and have chops... or whatever you want to call the technical skills to cover... entertain and get called back... there are levels of pros also...but what we all do.... we take responsibility for what we play.
What do you want to sound like.... can you cover that. Do you even know what you want to sound like...
Personally, I think the educational process has become a money process... Jump in anywhere and jump out anywhere... I'm not talking about the teachers on this forum... I'm talking in general... Students are being taught to follow...be told what's the right choice... sorry I know this is off topic... but much of the discussion about many of the topics are filled with information not learned or discovered... simply told from teachers educated in same manor.
You want to understand different systems of understanding pitch collections or methods of learning technical skills to play those pitch collections....do the research, put in the time...we know what it takes ... understand what your talking about and make your choice based on your understanding...
Reg
-
Reg - it sounds like you are saying at least a couple of things but maybe not.
1. jazz instruction has a lot of hit and miss advice (it always has).
2. jazz education is becoming more formal, highly organized and institutionalized. (i expect that this will continue given its age)
or are you saying something else?
-
No. Gave it up... Originally Posted by pingu
Last edited by whatswisdom; 04-20-2012 at 08:04 PM.
-
Yes. That's the effect great music has on me, anyway. Originally Posted by pingu
-
Yes...basically And the educ. process is becoming a business for creating $ instead of developing creative though.... Reg Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
Yea... I'm with Jon... Originally Posted by JonR
-
Actually, Ab Dorian is the second mode of Gb Major. The second mode of F# Major is G# Dorian. Originally Posted by Rich Cochrane
-
Ok so gersdal...sorry I didn't really give you any feed back as far as how pros hear and use Modes and play in a modal style.
Most of the pros I play with... can cover playing in a modal style... but when asked to explain the concept behind what they are playing... really depends... many don't really understand the concept... but have many applications down... Trial and error. But there is also a group that totally understand the concept and variations... and can also cover well... the playing part. Great players can make almost anything sound great.... whether they understand concepts or not. The players that have understanding... from educational sources usually have plenty of trial and error also. The real differences tend to show up more in chordal players... can't fake it as well. All the implications are real... you hear them.
And yes when we play... we play, the music is the focus. But good players can also have fun while we play... I talk behind the scene... a lot... we learn from each other etc... depends on gigs. Wear a tux... lots of time to talk.... casual and we get more into the playing... is it a performance or is it interaction etc... Reg
-
Thanks Originally Posted by Reg
-
I think on the contrary that this is the central core of the problem. Originally Posted by gersdal
I guess I would disagree with you in general on your statement. A functional tune like "All The Things You Are" is IMHO best viewed as harmonic elements (bricks) and played pretty much like key centre improvisation. However, the typical harmonic elements (like ii-V-I) may be spiced up by e.g. altered scale for the dominant 7th chord. I would, however find it over-complicating to teach Dm (dorian), G7 (Mixolydian or altered), Cmaj7 (Ionian) ... Teoretically it would be wrong because the chords does not last long enough to create the modal feel of e.g. dorian. The feel of a ii-V-I is C major in this example. That is not changed even if we throw in an altered scale over the G7. It is also much easier way of thinking that you are playing C major all the way. But this is really another discussion in my opinion...
Accepted. I started playing punk in the late 70'ties, so I guess I fall into that category ... or something even worse
. My perception is certainly based on my upbringing and experiences. Your view is interesting as you obviously come from a different background.
In fact I happen to witness on other forums, that people often use chordscale because they just don't realise that the tune and melody gravitates around a key center. (tonic) (and i did that before)
They understand intellectually what a tonality is, because they read it in books.
A tonic plus other notes.
But they don't ear the concept of this gravitation around the key center, they don't know how to ear the tonic.
At least not at a conscious level, because if they sing, what they sing will most of the time not ignore the tonal center.
For them the tonic is mostly the first note of a scale and that's it.
They tend to rather perceive the chord progression kind of a like a succession of modulations, where each root function as a tonic.
This is not the intent of the tonal music and how it must be heard primarily.
But this is where CST will make sens for some, because CST seem to give an accurate representation of what they perceive, where each root functions like the tonic of a scale/mode.
I don't believe it's impossible to ear and improvise this way, however I believe it's an error to think it will be easier, especially while one can't even track by ear the main tonic in a tune, wich can be difficult when there are many secondary dominants, chromatism etcetera.
I think going toward chordscale is bailing out to soon for many people.
It's like trying to destroy a steel door whitout knowing you have the key somewhere in your pocket.
Last edited by baguette; 04-25-2012 at 12:51 PM.
-
actually i think it's the confusing way to say things Originally Posted by monk
Actually, Ab Dorian is the second mode of Gb Major. The second mode of F# Major is G# Dorian.
Ab dorian is the mode which scale is the same than the scale starting from the second degree Gb Major.
I think saying it otherwise let believe that a mode is included inside a major tonality and that a mode is equal to a degree.
However modes doesn't have this relation with a tonality, they are rather kind of tonalities themselves, and saying a mode is a degree doesn't make sens either because mode have it's own proper degrees.
On another forum I have read Ed Byrne talking about "second inversion of the Major scale", just for sake of not using the word mode or degree.
In fact the idea is kind of similar for chords.
It's not because you voice a C chord, G C E, instead of C E G, that you play a Gsus4 omit3 omit5 add6. (please correct if it's wrong)
And on a II in C, if you really care about the tonal context, it's more accurate to say you play the second inversion of the major scale than dorian.
However this require that people first understand what is the problem, and secondly that people who understand the problem, care to watch how they word it.
This is kind of hopeless
Last edited by baguette; 04-25-2012 at 12:57 PM.
-
Reading your post leads me to believe you missed my point. Originally Posted by baguette
actually i think it's the confusing way to say things
Ab dorian is the mode which scale is the same than the scale starting from the second degree Gb Major.
I think saying it otherwise let believe that a mode is included inside a major tonality and that a mode is equal to a degree.
However modes doesn't have this relation with a tonality, they are rather kind of tonalities themselves, and saying a mode is a degree doesn't make sens either because mode have it's own proper degrees.
On another forum I have read Ed Byrne talking about "second inversion of the Major scale", just for sake of not using the word mode or degree.
In fact the idea is kind of similar for chords.
It's not because you voice a C chord, G C E, instead of C E G, that you play a Gsus4 omit3 omit5 add6. (please correct if it's wrong)
And on a II in C, if you really care about the tonal context, it's more accurate to say you play the second inversion of the major scale than dorian.
However this require that people first understand what is the problem, and secondly that people who understand the problem, care to watch how they word it.
This is kind of hopeless
-
seems more you missed mine then Originally Posted by monk
-
Monk was simply saying IF you're going to relate Ab Dorian to a parent scale, it's properly Gb, not F#. This does not disagree with what you're saying.
Which I get the point of as well, but playing entirely over key centers in a jazz context is a snore...Understanding the Chord-scale relationships allows the player to truly highlight the important notes in the chord of the moment...CST players do not view modes as simply being a "parent scale" or part of a key center--I'd go as far to say that one will never really get the application of modes in a jazz context if they view it that way.
-
Seven, to be precise.I think saying it otherwise let believe that a mode is included inside a major tonalityCould you elaborate on this?a mode is equal to a degree.Another thought that needs clarification. I don't at all follow where you're going here.However modes doesn't have this relation with a tonality, they are rather kind of tonalities themselves, and saying a mode is a degree doesn't make sens either because mode have it's own proper degrees.Why should "mode" or "degree" be used instead of "inversion"? I'd like to see where Ed Byrne came up with that one.On another forum I have read Ed Byrne talking about "second inversion of the Major scale", just for sake of not using the word mode or degree.Does this concept come from a book?And on a II in C, if you really care about the tonal context, it's more accurate to say you play the second inversion of the major scale than dorian.
-
why should I justify that mode=degree while I am saying the exact opposite Originally Posted by whatswisdom
the same goes for using mode instead of inversion
and pretty much all the questions you asks in fact
it's like you understood everything the opposite way of what I was saying
What makes you think I didn't understood that from is post ? Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I answered about the way it was said and the fact it shadows the real meaning of the word modes.
Because in my opinion the problem is here.
This word is originally naming a concept.
Then people come and use it to name another concept that they believe is new.
After some time it becomes harder for people to understand the original concept, because the word was "stollen".
or maybe you miss what chromatisms are all about, I don't know Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Last edited by baguette; 04-25-2012 at 01:39 PM.
-
Just looking for some more info on how you came up with those ideas. Not trying to be contentious. It's just that after reading your post I felt like I fell down the rabbit hole. Originally Posted by baguette
why should I justify that mode=degree while I am saying the exact opposite
the same goes for using mode instead of inversion
and pretty much all the questions you asks in fact
it's like you understood everything the opposite way of what I was saying
-
Hey baguette... Like your point, but there are many levels of awareness...
Chord scale is just a teaching method to becoming aware of complete pitch collection of any tonal content. It's not for teaching or explaining which notes of that pitch collection will define principles or concepts of use.
When we use the word modal... we're implying a concept of which notes of that pitch collection will define the tonal system.
I'm not sure of Ed's use of inversions of scale degrees... has fairly established implications... but I also have always simply referred to degrees of scales.... example being 7th degree of Melodic Minor.
Saying 2nd degree of major scale is obvious enough... but so is Dorian.... and in jazz circles, generally has more implications than simply playing a major scale starting on 2nd degree.
Just as with notational practice... simple chord changes usually imply much more than what's notated.
I also basically relate to tonal centers... but as jazz player there are always more implications than basic Euro Classical Major Min. functional harmony . Again not notated... but implied. Generally those other implications are from... Blue notes and influences from, Modal Interchange and influences from, Modal concepts and implications from and Melodic Min and influences from.
All those concepts always influence any Tonic and the notes around that tonic. The actual note collection and which notes of that collection define the principles of use.
I'm keeping it short and simple... But might help you see why many don't have any problems with Chord Scales as one of many learning methods of becoming aware those note collections around tonics, not defining principles or concepts.
Reg
-
Originally Posted by baguette
why should I justify that mode=degree while I am saying the exact opposite
the same goes for using mode instead of inversion
and pretty much all the questions you asks in fact
it's like you understood everything the opposite way of what I was saying
What makes you think I didn't understood that from is post ?
I answered about the way it was said and the fact it shadows the real meaning of the word modes.
Because in my opinion the problem is here.
This word is originally naming a concept.
Then people come and use it to name another concept that they believe is new.
After some time it becomes harder for people to understand the original concept, because the word was "stollen".
or maybe you miss what chromatisms are all about, I don't know
I think we're looking at a language barrier issue here, and not a musical one.
-
Hey Jeff... I agree... but also think there is musical content. Knowing more doesn't at all translate to being a better player and all the usual BS, But when verbalizing about theory, harmony... musical content... it definitely make big differences... And even may actually influence right or wrong.
Again all BS when we play... but I'm generally trying to help educate guitar players... help become better musicians, not just players. Help become aware of more levels of awareness, not just the simplest path or 1st understanding. I can say that being aware may not make me a better player... but it really helps me appreciate playing music... i still dig playing, and it comes through in my playing...Reg
-
well in short Originally Posted by whatswisdom
when i learned to play, i wanted to improvise, and play what i was hearing.
So focused a lot on ear training, learning how to reconise scales, chords, melodies, using melodic intervals between notes, or intervalls with the roots.
Since the progression was slow, I finally told myself that maybe I should try to learn to read music to help hearing, by singing what I was reading, first with simple major stuffs.
I used the above technics in the begining then one day I remember about the tonic, and how it's supposed to begin and end tunes.
And I finally saw the light here, I tried to hear intervalls between the note supposed to be the tonic and the other notes.
Un-natural at first, it became soon clear that it was way faster and efficient.
I can now read and hear a reasonable sheet without instrument, I also can notate what I hear without instrument, and this comes specifically from an improved key center awarness.
And the bonus is that in the process you learn to hear function.
This is where i realised that modes how I was trying to use them systematically, where not the right way to play what I had in mind, because many phrases that where comming naturally where in fact not necessarily conceived this way.
That's also a reason why I say nowhere that it's impossible to conceive each root as a tonic, and use CST how you describe you use it to reach colors, whatever.
What I am saying is that as a hearing technic it doesn't cover every possibilities. ( i am not saying you said that, or implied this or that)
I don't say chordscales are useless, I say that they mislead many of us about how things really works.
Now it's very difficult to adress such points without offending anyone, and I think it's the main goal of the original poster with is table.
My original point was and is still that many people use chordscale as an alternative to not really understanding the tonal concepts, often dismissing tonal concepts, saying it's too simple, dull, etcetera, something that I was personnaly thinking at some point.
I now what you mean, but many people don't know. Originally Posted by Reg
If they read II in a II V I in C major is D dorian, then they will train to play D dorian over a D pedal for like 1 hour, then try to fit it on the 1 second that last a II chord.
he talks about "inversion of scale", not of "inversion of scale degree" Originally Posted by Reg
Yes but many people will read that while they can't even ear function Originally Posted by Reg
so while they read II, they should be able to hear II, the function II, but they will believe that what they must ear is D dorian mode, like D dorian over a D pedal.
This is I believe a reason why the author created this topic, because
- it's confusing for people who know function and don't know the modal pich collection naming style
- it's confusing for people who don't know function ( in the way that it will not help them to hear function)
- it's confusing for people who know function and know the modal naming, because of the confusion of the two points above
not sure what you mean, but even a melody implies things that are not actually played or physically heard by the ears Originally Posted by Reg
yes but you say yourself that there are words already to cover this concepts Originally Posted by Reg
Yes but unfortunely this method will lead many to not be aware of the main tonic ! How helpfull is that ? Originally Posted by Reg
This is really a verified fact, and as advanced players, talking not in closed jazz circles, but on wide open forums on internet, accessible to any beginer in music, I don't understand why you tend to dismiss this problem.Last edited by baguette; 04-25-2012 at 04:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions