-
We’re debating interpretations of a vague bit of text that may actually have nothing to do with what bird said.
I don’t mean to negate the idea that Parker may have been thinking in scales on chords, but rather that I don’t think we can conclude that from examining the exact wording of the text. Melodies are not necessarily scalar. Furthermore an examination of Parker’s upper extension lines reveals them to most often be arpeggio based. The more traditional approach to upper extensions is to conceptualise them as chords and sub chords and there’s absolutely nothing in the quote that makes me think that isn’t what is being discussed.
Obviously Bird mentioned scales elsewhere. My hunch is he meant diatonic traditional scales which were part of every musicians training for centuries. Many jazz musicians also had a classical background including Coleman Hawkins, who played cello and studied composition.
So given the title of thread references chord-scales… no I don’t get that from the quote, but on the other hand many people have drawn that interpretation from it. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either.
Things I would like to know - how much were players thinking in applied melodic minor or minor on chords for example? They certainly seem to be playing that stuff sometimes, and there is Tristano, very much part of the bop circle in that era.
This type of historical approach to jazz theory hasn’t featured much in jazz writing. Berliner is the only book I can think of. I’ll have a dip in there later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
08-14-2024 09:52 AM
-
Parker sounds like Parker when he’s playing 1 3 5.
Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
His rhythmic prowess was part of what established him as a bebop archetype, but so was his harmonic organization.
-
Well … you did title the thread? Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
I did. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
I use triads all the time and think about upper structures and organize them using chord scales. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Jordan doesn’t. Categorically different thing.
-
Oh okay. Just double checking. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
I said chord scales. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
I don't think it's helpful to bring a more loaded and subjectively defined notion like chord-scale theory into the discussion. I don't think there is a clear definition for "CST". Some equated to Lydian Chromatic concept, some equate it to the particular language and harmonic elements introduced in the 60's etc.
-
I mean … okay. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Well the Not Loaded, Objectively Defined way that Charlie Parker (or some other unnamed person) is referring to chord scales is not clear. For whatever that’s worth.
-
Glad we sorted that out lol
-
It isn't that controversial to me that the notion of a chord scale, that is chord tones and extensions arranged in a scale, is less ambiguous than the notion of chord scale theory. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
It's clear to me what you mean by chord scales here for example.
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Page 66 of his book Harmony with Lego Bricks. The article used to be available online, but has disappeared. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Again … I guess it’s just not clear to me why that Charlie Parker “quote” implies he’s talking about chord scales. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Any mention of upper extensions necessarily means chord-scales?
-
Quoting myself from and earlier post: Originally Posted by pamosmusic
So again if we assume for a moment that the quote can be attributed to Charlie Parker, his conceptualization of upper extensions as melodic structures suggests an early evolution towards seeing the chords as collection of 7 notes when playing the changes (obviously not always exactly 7 notes). That doesn't mean he only used upper extensions from that point forward but he conceptualized them as musical entities.
-
Right. I’m just saying (and I think Christian too) that thinking of chords as collections do 7 notes (and not always 7 notes) doesn’t really need to imply that someone is conceiving of chord-scales. That was why I mentioned Jordan’s stuff. Basically everything is a slash chord. Do you end up with the same notes? Sometimes (not always) but the implications of those notes, the weight each gets and the role it plays can be very different. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Practice is everything.
-
Thinking of chords as collections of 7 notes (and not always 7 notes) (chord tone + extensions) is literally chord-scales in the way they are defined. The additional harmonic, melodic concepts that you use with these notes is not relevant to the notion (it's not CST). There are infinite possibilities. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Looking at Thomas Owen's dissertation and analysis of Parker's solos along with listening to early recordings it seems to me that Parker was essentially a riff player. He had various motives that he would embellish and combine in different ways. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Comparing with his McShann earlier recordings, it does seem that he has expanded the set of notes he used to form these motives but these differences are rather small and some riffs sound almost verbatim from the earlier periods.
My not fully backed opinion would be that Parker took some of his existing vocabulary and tweaked it slightly to include some additional color tones at times.
I personally wouldn't call it CST, though. He had some riffs that worked over harmonic blocks and revamped them to have some alterations.
For me CST implies a kind pf thinking where you think play this scale over this chord which seems far from what Parker did.
-
I understand chord-scales as a descriptive notion. Over a given chord, the chord tones + extensions treated as a note collection to be used in melodic and chord construction. It is not a practice mindset, it is not a prescription of how you play these notes.
Any disagreements?
My point was, if we assume that the quote belongs to Charlie Parker, then it would mean that he was considering the deliberate use of melodic material based on the extensions of a chord (9, 11, 13 variations) a novelty at the time. So on a given chord, he would be deliberately utilizing the chord's extensions along with it's chord tones. The extensions wouldn't always be arpeggiated necessarily. Though not sure if that's relevant to the notion of chord-scales.
So it doesn't seem to me like crazy leap that the quote (if true) indicates a change in how jazz musicians conceptualized what to play over chords which so happens to correspond to the notion of chord-scales.
-
I'm not sure what types of melodic ideas "play this scale" implies. Originally Posted by charlieparker
But a chord-scale is a notion related to playing the changes. It serves as a reference for note choices available to a musician over a given chord.
For example, a blues player may use blues scale over a dominant chord as the collection of notes, they would be playing riffs with notes from the scale. They wouldn't necessarily just "play the scale".
-
With respect … it sounds like it’s almost impossible not to be conceptualizing chord-scales, by your definition.
-
Not according to Charlie Parker. If the quote is correct, he didn't conceptualize extensions as melodic possibilities available to him until the epiphany he had. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
My point was that I think Parker had essentially pre-composed melodic fragments that he used over melodic chunks from his earlier days. Originally Posted by Tal_175
He used these same licks later but with slight alterations. So the way I see it, he couldn't have been primarily thinking about the tone collection for a chord primarily because most of these riffs were created over different harmonic contexts. He may have thought, let me tweak this bit here for a new sound by adding this extension.
That's just my take on it and I could be completely wrong and maybe we are just arguing about what to call something.
But I think it is slightly different than your examples in that Parker already had vocabulary that he made slight changes to as opposed to making something up with the chord scales as the primary building blocks to draw on.
-
This is circular reasoning.
Heres my definition of chord scales.
Doesnt that apply to everything?
Not according to Charlie Parker.
Did he actually say that?
We don’t know.
And what does it have to do with chord scales?
Heres my definition of chord scales.
Doesnt that apply to everything?
-
To be fair I didn't make such a strong claim. Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
The point is actually fairly simple. Maybe come back to it again when you feel less defensive about it, or not? Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Yesterday, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions