The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 227
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcjazz
    Afraid you’ve lost me there.
    Most of his material is scales and arps used theoretically correctly. Isn't that the definition of CST?

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    My suspicion is this kind of thing may come more from modern rock/pop guitar pedagogy where we learn the blues as a scale and widdle around in that. Never mind that the great rock and blues players were playing melodies just as much as Bird et al, and had learned these licks by ear from their favourite records. Good blues and rock guys learn the importance of dues paying and careful listening, but many rock players never cotton onto this and still work from tabs etc.

    When (shred) rock guitar players move to jazz they expect more of the same. They can find it too, perhaps, in some corners of fusion.

    I think this is much less problem for pianists and sax players, because most of these guys are better musicians than the average guitar botherer.

    That said Ethan seems to think of it as a problem for pianists. I remember some other article where he was talking about European jazz club owners who all have a play at the end of the night when everyone's packing up, and invariably sound like a pale imitation of Bill Evans because that's what you get from Chord Scale theory and that's how they learned.

    Ouch. That dude knows how to get on his high horse. I learned a lot from him ;-)
    Absolutely. I tend to think of the guitar "fraternity" as the kids on the short yellow bus.... at least as regards educational books. Instead of starting with basics like CAGED (which has been somewhat remedied in the last decade or so) we'd get a diagram of a sixth string A position minor pentatonic shape box. "Here ya go, noodle..... it sounds almost like music."

    I don't mind guys on a high horse who have strong opinions if they know what they're talking about.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ The omnibook is CST. So how could he not have known about it? The fact that CST wasn't standardized (or invented as you would put it) is moot.
    This is a pivot in the argument you have been making. If you are talking about the books Bird used to learn, and how important it is that he learned theory form books, how exactly is it moot?

    Otoh even if I accept your contention (which I don’t think I do) that Bird didn’t learn CST and yet played CST all you have proven is that it is unnecessary to learn CST to play CST sounds. Which I think is true for the specific sounds Bird and other players of his gen were using, because they can be arrived at from subs etc.

    The same goes for any of the other highly gifted soloists of his era both bop and pre-bop for that matter none of whom learned CST due to it not yet being a theory taught to players, and you can go through any number of pre 50s solos and find altered scales, lydian doms, you name it (although you’ll also find other stuff that doesn’t ‘fit’)

    If on the other hand you want to explore the actual theory that the players of that era may have learned that’s a discussion about what specific materials they used, which I’m always interested to learn more about if the info is out there.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-27-2022 at 03:49 PM.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    A good source of information on how the old cats learned are the interviews in the Filius Archives at Hamilton College*. You will find out that many learned their instruments in school but were not allowed to to play jazz there. They got classical instrumental training for playing in school orchestras and marching bands that played at parades and sports events — no or not much theory necessary. How to improvise they had to figure out on their own.

    * use Wikipedia to find out who were the really old cats that played e.g. with Basie or Ellington

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    The other thing is the way you analyse a line will affect what you see.

    If you analyse every line from the root of each chord you will see one thing. (This is the type of analysis that I see most commonly)

    If you look at what the line describes on its own and then only later compare with the underlying progression you will see something else

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bop Head
    A good source of information on how the old cats learned are the interviews in the Filius Archives at Hamilton College*. You will find out that many learned their instruments in school but were not allowed to to play jazz there. They got classical instrumental training for playing in school orchestras and marching bands that played at parades and sports events — no or not much theory necessary. How to improvise they had to figure out on their own.

    * use Wikipedia to find out who were the really old cats that played e.g. with Basie or Ellington
    This is what I would expect from my own reading.
    For example, the famous Cass Technical School in Detroit, which Barry Harris didn’t attend but many of the leading lights of Detroit music did (it’s quite a list.) Classical instrumental lessons and orchestra on a Saturday.

    The jazz school in Detroit was Barry though. Even in his teens he was the guy who had figured it out and was willing to teach it to his friends like James Jamerson, Paul Chambers, Tommy Flanagan and many more. (Even Trane visited according to Barry.)

    Information on jazz improvisation was not common in that era. Again, and this is hard to imagine in a world where seemingly everyone is selling their online jazz course, but the professionals often did not want to share their trade secrets. They didn’t need to, there were plenty of gigs! People like Diz, Sandole, Lennie and a little later, Barry were not that common and you had to seek them out. Those guys were among the first.

    As for the quantity of info about jazz improv today compared to then, it’s not complicated really. Players need to earn money one way or another.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-27-2022 at 04:28 PM.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Otoh even if I accept your contention (which I don’t think I do) that Bird didn’t learn CST and yet played CST all you have proven is that it is unnecessary to learn CST to play CST sounds. Which I think is true for the specific sounds Bird and other players of his gen were using, because they can be arrived at from subs etc. The same goes for any of the other highly gifted soloists of his era both bop and pre-bop for that matter none of whom learned CST due to it not yet being a theory taught to players, and you can go through any number of pre 50s solos and find altered scales, lydian doms, you name it (although you’ll also find other stuff that doesn’t ‘fit’)
    Pedagogy not existing or existing but that we don't have record of isn't proof that they didn't use theory. Why are you so intent on pushing your agenda with disregard for the facts? Parker said he developed his playing through studying books! If his main pathway was a basic understanding of the instrument and music then a lot of playing, he would have said so! All 3 of them clarified and were in agreement that it wasn't solely a lot of playing and aural understanding.

    If on the other hand you want to explore the actual theory that the players of that era may have learned that’s a discussion about what specific materials they used, which I’m always interested to learn more about if the info is out there.
    We still don't understand that fully do we? The more light we can shed on it, the better.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    My uninformed take is that Parker was lick based. He had os stock phrases and would vary and recombine them in interesting ways.

    As to how he came up with these base riffs we don't really know. My guess it was a process of first imitating others and then evolving his own variations.

    I think at a basic level he must have known about chords, scales, substitutions and arpeggios and have had some conception of tonal centers.

    When I think of CST, I think of the concept of a scale associated with each chord. I honestly find it less likely that is how he perceived music and improvised.

    I question if such an approach could even work at the tempos Parker improvised at.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    My uninformed take is that Parker was lick based. He had os stock phrases and would vary and recombine them in interesting ways.

    As to how he came up with these base riffs we don't really know. My guess it was a process of first imitating others and then evolving his own variations.

    I think at a basic level he must have known about chords, scales, substitutions and arpeggios and have had some conception of tonal centers.

    When I think of CST, I think of the concept of a scale associated with each chord. I honestly find it less likely that is how he perceived music and improvised.

    I question if such an approach could even work at the tempos Parker improvised at.
    Tempo.
    Exactly.......at 320 bpm you're not "thinking" about scales.
    Woideck and Owens in their books go into this in quite a bit of detail. I'm not gonna copy pasta, you'll have to find the books and read them... if you haven't already.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    My uninformed take is that Parker was lick based. He had os stock phrases and would vary and recombine them in interesting ways.

    As to how he came up with these base riffs we don't really know. My guess it was a process of first imitating others and then evolving his own variations.

    I think at a basic level he must have known about chords, scales, substitutions and arpeggios and have had some conception of tonal centers.

    When I think of CST, I think of the concept of a scale associated with each chord. I honestly find it less likely that is how he perceived music and improvised.

    I question if such an approach could even work at the tempos Parker improvised at.
    And besides his stock licks he always like do to a lot of quotes. Pepper Adams recollects in the link that I have posted above that Parker would also read (at that time avant-garde) classical scores to (as I have understood it) lift ideas from there. Parker must have an had enormous memory for melodies which speaks for an gifted ear player too.

    On the website with the other link I have posted above (Bird working out his upper structure thing with guitarist Biddy Fleet) there is a huge list where you can post if you recognize something he quoted. Because the least of us will probably know e.g. French composer Arthur Honegger’s works — as mentioned by Pepper Adams — there might be a lot of quotes remain undiscovered.

    There is again a definition problem here in this discussion that is provoking some — this time regarding the term “folk music”. Ethan Iverson is an intellectual who knows his modern (music) ethnology. “Folk music” comprises more than “primitive” rural ways of playing or “The Great Folk Scare”.

    [BTW folklore has also been always been a huge influence on European classical music. The father of Joseph and Haydn was e.g. a blacksmith in a small village. Later Bartok had a more scientific approach which heavily influenced his compositions. “Through his collection and analytical study of folk music, he was one of the founders of comparative musicology, which later became ethnomusicology.” (wiki)]

    Another classical quote in Jazz by Dizz and Bird is the “classic” [sic] bebop intro to All The Things You Are.


  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Pedagogy not existing or existing but that we don't have record of isn't proof that they didn't use theory. Why are you so intent on pushing your agenda with disregard for the facts? Parker said he developed his playing through studying books! If his main pathway was a basic understanding of the instrument and music then a lot of playing, he would have said so! All 3 of them clarified and were in agreement that it wasn't solely a lot of playing and aural understanding.
    OK, I feel like you are conflating quite a few different things, so I think it's helpful to be specific so I don't get shouted at our accused of being 'deep state' or whatever. I do find that sort of thing quite exhausting, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

    The areas of contention on this thread as I understand it are:

    1) is CST a good way of analysing Bird's music?
    2) did Bird consciously use CST?
    3) did jazz theory books have an influence on Bird's formative development as a player?
    4) did instructional material including books form part of Bird's learning
    5) was Parker playing CST despite not knowing CST?
    6) Was Parker interested in theory?

    This hasn't AFAIk been touched on but is relevant
    7) Did Bird learn more theory later on?

    The answers to these questions that have been established so far (excluding my own views)

    1) disputed
    2) no
    (because it didn't exist as a pedagogical theory back then)
    3) maybe, probably not
    (as there wasn't much material available)
    4) yes
    (because he said so)
    5) disputed (and somewhat philosophical)
    6) yes
    7) I would expect so. He was after all super tight with Diz. The cover of Berliner's book is the famous photo of Bird with Tristano. There are what looks like lead sheets on the piano. I do always wonder what the music is and what they were talking about. Tristano was a big theory guy of course.

    Hope that clears up the terms of the discussion and what we agree on and where we may differ.

    As far as 3) goes, I think more evidence is required to say for certain either way. I'm VERY doubtful from what I know, but I would like nothing better if someone on the thread knew a jazz improv manual from 1935 or whenever Parker actually used.

    Remember Barry Harris worked out and analysed Bird's music himself in his own way. He wouldn't have felt the need to do it if there had been a clear and widely available pedagogical pathway to playing that music. The historical evidence suggests that while formal musical training was not unusual among jazzers (Coleman Hawkins was a trained composer and a cellist for example), specific jazz pedagogy did not yet exist. Jazz learning followed heutogogical and apprenticeship models.

    There were some teachers by the 1940s. Dennis Sandole who seems to have been teaching really interesting things like Indian Raags and 12-tone theory back then (Trane studied with him) rather than jazz improv per se (AFAIK, again I'd welcome more info) and there was famously the Tristano school starting from about 1948 with the express aim of teaching jazz to students as well as developing the music. These were among the first jazz teachers AFAIK.

    As far as 1) and 5) goes, that's a different discussion which takes in philosophy, education, all sorts.

    We still don't understand that fully do we? The more light we can shed on it, the better.
    I would welcome any further information you or anyone else may have. I haven't seen anything I wasn't aware of already on this thread so far.

    I actually own the Klose books but they may be in storage atm. It might be fun to do a vid on them if I can track them down.

    One thing that makes this sort of thing frustratingly hard to research is jazz education hasn't generally been that interested in historical practices, so information of how people learned decades ago isn't represented that much in the literature. The best book (which is a serious work of musicology but very well written) is Berliner's. I'll dip into it and see if I can find any more info (it is about 1000 pages long though lol and I should probably do some actual practice)
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-28-2022 at 05:56 AM.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ChazFromCali
    Absolutely. I tend to think of the guitar "fraternity" as the kids on the short yellow bus.... at least as regards educational books. Instead of starting with basics like CAGED (which has been somewhat remedied in the last decade or so) we'd get a diagram of a sixth string A position minor pentatonic shape box. "Here ya go, noodle..... it sounds almost like music."

    I don't mind guys on a high horse who have strong opinions if they know what they're talking about.
    As in the fact that Ethan is one of the foremost jazz pianists of his generation, someone who has played with and interviewed countless masters and has an apparently bottomless appetite for research into the history of the music? Yes I would say that's a more informed opinion than most. He can still say silly things sometimes, but I agree with most of what he says, and at the very least I can say it's founded on a lot of knowledge, certainly more than I have.

    I don't think it's necessary to get on one's high horse about it though. So I'm told :-) Text is a difficult medium for conveying a nuanced tone, though.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    My uninformed take is that Parker was lick based. He had os stock phrases and would vary and recombine them in interesting ways.
    I agree.

    TBF, music can be like a Rorschach inkblot. You will generally find what you are looking for. If you look for chord scales for example, you will find chord scales - and miss the other elements of the music completely such as rhythm, melody, cultural context (ie quotations) and so on.

    But if you are looking for repeating modules of vocabulary you are going to find lot them (I'm sure someone mentioned that paper back in the 70s somewhere), and listening to Parker's early playing I think this does cast a lot of light on how he learned to improvise.

    As to how he came up with these base riffs we don't really know. My guess it was a process of first imitating others and then evolving his own variations.

    I think at a basic level he must have known about chords, scales, substitutions and arpeggios and have had some conception of tonal centers.

    When I think of CST, I think of the concept of a scale associated with each chord. I honestly find it less likely that is how he perceived music and improvised.

    I question if such an approach could even work at the tempos Parker improvised at.
    Well CST players don't think that way when playing either - everything has to be properly internalised to come out on the gig. Doesn't matter if it's a Parker lick or a melodic minor pattern. By that point you aren't thinking of it as a scale thing anymore. As Adam Rogers (who is a heavily CST grounded player) put it 'if you can play it fast, you've played it before.'

    Anyway CST is about harmony. Bebop is about vocabulary and idiom. Everyone knows this of course, which is why they teach 'language' at the schools, usually canned licks and lines on ii-V's which TBF has a noble tradition within jazz. Most jazz students learn both because it covers a lot of ground if you want to play jazz gigs. I do know some fantastic bop specialists (the sorts of people who get invited to sit in by Peter Bernstein) who say they basically never use it. They all learned to play via vocabulary. When I ask people who play that well how they learned, I generally listen to what they have to say.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Yea... just a few points.

    CST is about analysis of harmony and the possibilities of direct interrelationships between chords and scales functioning in relationship to a Tonal center.

    It's just one of those many steps of becoming aware of playing. Just like most aspects... if you don't have chops or as Christian posted have the technique to be able to..."Play Fast", your going to have difficulty being able to play at the speed of Jazz... let alone be able to understand it.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    CST is about analysis of harmony and the possibilities of direct interrelationships between chords and scales functioning in relationship to a Tonal center.
    This is correct. Christian, it is irrelevant if you try to use CST as a red herring - that it 'didn't exist' because it wasn't standardized until later. Bird obviously functionally used it. Here is most of his solo on Scrapple from the apple. It is decidedly NOT licks. There is not a single lick in there. It is functional CST where he either plays the chord scale, the arp, the tonal center scale, altered extensions, or chromatic tones leading into chord tones. Lol - that is functional CST. You guys really need help.

    Charlie Parker fully analyzed-scrapple-solo-png

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    OK, I feel like you are conflating quite a few different things, so I think it's helpful to be specific so I don't get shouted at our accused of being 'deep state' or whatever. I do find that sort of thing quite exhausting, I'm sure I'm not the only one.
    You know what is exhausting? Ceaselessly trying to further your agenda with complete disregard for the facts and as if you have authority over the forum.

    The areas of contention on this thread as I understand it are:

    is CST a good way of analysing Bird's music?
    Yes, because that's how his music is structured. Why would you search for a different paradigm when his music conforms to it all the time?

    did Bird consciously use CST?
    Yes, he obviously did. Otherwise his solo material would have different relationships. But, it sticks to functional CST all the time. Peruse the omnibook since you obviously haven't.

    did jazz theory books have an influence on Bird's formative development as a player?
    Correct, that's disputed. We don't know this for sure. I think he had access to some kind of theory material.

    did instructional material including books form part of Bird's learning?
    Yes, correct. He said so.

    was Parker playing CST despite not knowing CST?
    He obviously was. His solos conform to cst 100% of the time. It is impossible for him to not have known it otherwise there would be different relationships in his solos. Functional cst is how reg defined it. Cst the red herring is as you define it - as pedagogy not standardized until after the golden age.

    Was Parker interested in theory?
    Again yes, he obviously was if you glance at the omnibook.
    Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 09-28-2022 at 02:27 PM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    You know what is exhausting? Ceaselessly trying to further your agenda with complete disregard for the facts and as if you have authority over the forum.

    ....
    Pot, kettle etc... Wow...

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    @Jimmy
    Two people can disagree without one of them having an agenda. Although I am curious as to what you may think my agenda is.

    tbh your argumentation is a bit all over the place so it’s hard to work out what we disagree on anyway.

    Anyway, for clarity, here’s a list of things I don’t think, which may or may not be relevant to whatever it is you are trying to say:
    1) that Bird learned jazz out of a book
    2) that Bird never looked at a music book or didn’t use them to learn
    3) that your definition of CST is the same one I use (I use the one found in the Nettles and Graf textbook on the subject.)
    4) that there is one single authoritative, internally coherent and exhaustive body of music theory and that I am ‘mad’ at it
    5) that music theories (inc CST) have any significance beyond being models we use to understand and teach aspects of real music
    6) that CST is particularly central to becoming a good bop improviser
    7) that CST analysis is the best way of understanding Parker’s lines
    8) that you can learn to improvise jazz convincingly from a book (or theory def inc CST)
    9) that using theory (inc CST) in your learning necessarily means you won’t be able to play or are in some way a bad musician
    10) that the methods I endorse are necessarily the only effective methods or even the best methods (there’s always stuff to learn)
    11) that I originated any of the things I am saying here, or teach, and that I didn’t get them from musicians and educators that I hold in the highest regard
    12) that I’m always right about everything

    However I do feel that in this case I have an educated, researched and thought out opinion that’s also based on my experience learning and teaching jazz, and I’m pretty confident about it.

    As for what I do think, if it interests, here’s a video on my preferred approach to analysing Parker lines. (Apols for the slight clickbait title.)


    Right, that’s me done. Take or leave it, baby.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-29-2022 at 06:53 AM.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I’ve had to think about this one. I need to talk to a horn player.

    Here’s the thing I guess, if Parker hadn’t been a sax player would he have played the same shit?

    Well he shares a main influence with the other Charlie (christian) in Lester young. So both represent a development of what Prez was doing. And Charlie was of course a heavy shapes player despite being the first guitarist to come not from banjo, but trying to imitate a horn.

    In terms of imitating what bird did historically play on saxophone on guitar, well that pushes you into some non guitaristic territory (though there are guitaristic ways to play some of that stuff, which Jimmy certainly used) and there are kind of lots of shapes and licks which Bird used. He was to some extent quite a lick oriented player.

    Which leads me to suspect a lot of what he did was natural to the horn. Which would suggest that his approach on guitar would have been to find things natural to that instrument.... But I’d need to ask a Sax player.
    Wasn't a certain guitar player very influential on Bird ? The name escapes me. It was mentioned in Kansas City Lightning.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by m_d
    Wasn't a certain guitar player very influential on Bird ? The name escapes me. It was mentioned in Kansas City Lightning.
    Buddy Fleet?

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    CST is just not very prominent (to put it mildly) in Thinking in Jazz, true reference work which is based on dozens of interviews of historical players. I'm no a musicologist but it seems quite obvious CST was a product of academia. It is an analytic tool fairly typical of academia. Dry, systematic, unimaginative, useful for... analysis. It is all but ignored or is given second place by more great teachers than I can count: Alvin Baptiste, Barry Harris, Hal Galper, David Berkman, Bert Ligon, Ran Blake, Aimee Nolte... as well as Christian whose work I happen to dig a lot - not just as a teacher but also a musician. I don't perceive his posts as selling an agenda particularly, since all the above names would agree with him mostly as well as too many players to mention...

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Yea... and I wonder why most guitarist take a lifetime to become mediocre at best.

    I know from good old fashion trial and error approach from playing gigs, arranging and composing for the last 50 years. Players don't take a life time just getting to the point of at least being able to play gigs and verbally talking about what and how they play etc...

    We may not like the academic BS, $ approach and the... Dry, systematic, unimaginative results. But at least younger players get to a point where they can at least play etc...

    I've always pushed the get your technical skills together first approach and talk about it after you can at least back up what you preach.... even if it sucks. You'll actually know when you play gigs... and audiences show up.(or not).

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by m_d
    CST is just not very prominent (to put it mildly) in Thinking in Jazz, true reference work which is based on dozens of interviews of historical players. I'm no a musicologist but it seems quite obvious CST was a product of academia. It is an analytic tool fairly typical of academia. Dry, systematic, unimaginative, useful for... analysis. It is all but ignored or is given second place by more great teachers than I can count: Alvin Baptiste, Barry Harris, Hal Galper, David Berkman, Bert Ligon, Ran Blake, Aimee Nolte... as well as Christian whose work I happen to dig a lot - not just as a teacher but also a musician. I don't perceive his posts as selling an agenda particularly, since all the above names would agree with him mostly as well as too many players to mention...
    yeah I don’t really have that much of an axe to grind about cst or any other jazz edu ideas really. People learn it cst all the time and it completely fails to mess up their playing if they actually doing all the stuff that good teachers tell you to do. It is tbf pretty necessary for understanding the music of contemporary jazz players who have all studied it themselves. I don’t think there’s much that’s controversy among educators. Everyone agrees on the important stuff. (Well, everyone I have met who can actually play anyway.)

    As you say it seems CST was largely adopted to fulfil the needs of college accreditation. Berklee was accredited as a college, not merely a school in 1970 for instance.

    Afaik it was done so because it relates to the jazz that was being played at that time by many of the tutors such as fusion and post-modal jazz. But afaik no-one teaches bop language that way even at those same institutions. It’s usually taught via transcription, vocab, subs and ii Vs as it has been since Bird’s era. The reason is that what makes bop sound like bop best taught that way. The teachers know obviously what they are doing, they are the best. And Berklee, for one, is still an institution broad enough to house those such as Richie Hart or Hal Crook who questions cst as an improv pedagogy.

    Anyway here’s Beato on the subject


    of course Barry did have an axe to grind, and tbh I can understand his annoyance


    who did they ask? Lol
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-29-2022 at 01:45 PM.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Two people can disagree without one of them having an agenda.
    Fine. We can agree to disagree. You are free to go on incorrectly spouting that Parker language was conceived mostly aurally when it was obviously conceived with both musicianship and theory - he said so. I don't know how that constitutes not having an agenda, but you're entitled to your opinion there also.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    I’ve posted it a few times but this interview with Richie Hart is generally pertinent to this subject


    may be useful for those not lucky enough to have George Benson as a mentor…