Was Charlie Parker the Culprit Behind the Chord-Scales?

[pamosmusic]

Sure, it's likely that every jazz player thinks a bit differently. My point is that it's a bit contrived to think of chord-scales differently than chord-centric view.

I mean I don’t want to keep jumping to Jordans stuff but I know him well and like his stuff, so it’s interesting to think of how my use of those devices differs from his.

Over Gmaj … he uses Em(2), Bm(4), D(2), and some others. He does *not* use Bm(b2) or Em(b6) even though both are diatonic to the key. That’s because the additional notes disrupt rather than highlight the resolutions he wants to hear with the upper structures and those patterns of resolution are the whole thing. I on the other hand take those 1 2 3 5 or 1 2 3 6 arpeggios across a couple octaves and just transpose them as is through the key. I like them all as melodic patterns, and end up with different sounds because I’m thinking of all seven of the notes in that big extended chord and just trying to find interesting melodies through them. Jordan’s priority and orientation to the harmony is fundamentally different.

[Christian Miller]

He didn't use chord-scales in the same sense that Allan Holdsworth used it. But that's hardy a forced outcome of using chord-scales.

Barry Harris used the major scale with a #4 (some say Lydian) differently than Allan Holdsworth for example.

I don’t think Barry really works by way of comparison, it’s more of constructive approach to generating jazz lines whereas chord scale theory is about harmony. The harmonic implications of Barry’s scales are much less important than the melodic aspects. As I say the harmony is treated quite generally in the improvisation stuff .

Players who come up through the post Berklee CST thing definitely use scales in a freer more intervallic way. You definitely notice it when transcribing more modern players.

I think conceptualising seven note pitch sets of good sounding notes over chords encourages a way of constructing lines that is different to both more traditional approaches and Barry’s.

[Tal_175]

Over Gmaj … he uses Em(2), Bm(4), D(2), and some others. He does *not* use Bm(b2) or Em(b6) even though both are diatonic to the key. That’s because the additional notes disrupt rather than highlight the resolutions he wants to hear with the upper structures and those patterns of resolution are the whole thing.

So he is using G major scale with a #4 (lydian). I believe you that he doesn't see it as the lydian scale. But does he see it as Gmajor chord with the extensions 9, #11, and 13?
My point is that it's contrived to make a distinction between G Major scale with a #4 view (ie. chord-scale view) vs Gmajor7 with extensions 9, #11, 13 view. I am not sure how this relates to Jordan's approach.

[Tal_175]

I don’t think Barry really works by way of comparison, it’s more of constructive approach to generating jazz lines whereas chord scale theory is about harmony. The harmonic implications of Barry’s scales are much less important than the melodic aspects. As I say the harmony is treated quite generally in the improvisation stuff .

Players who come up through the post Berklee CST thing definitely use scales in a freer more intervallic way. You definitely notice it when transcribing more modern players.

I think conceptualising seven note pitch sets of good sounding notes over chords encourages a way of constructing lines that is different to both more traditional approaches and Barry’s.

Do you agree that major scale with a #4 is a chord-scale for the fourth chord of the major scale according to the definition you provided?

[Christian Miller]

Do you agree that major scale with a #4 is a chord-scale for the fourth chord of the major scale according to the definition you provided?

I think you are missing the context. This is not how Barry conceptualised scales. The pitches are the same, but their use in his teaching are quite different.

If you use the scale as a collection of ‘good sounding’ pitches over a chord then that’s a chord scale. A scale used harmonically.

Barry was all about the line, not how individual notes or pitch sets sounded over a chord. Harmony was emergent from the line and consequently dynamic, moving and included dissonance.

Chord scales focus on colour over static chords.

In fact you could for instance take any chord scale you like and apply Barry’s line construction ideas to them. Barry himself focussed on dominant, major and minor but the DVDs themselves explain the rules can be applied to any scale you like.

Obviously if you apply the Barry harris rules to scales you need up playing all the extensions and so on you can imagine - if you choose to analyse things that way (you’ll find some funny notes too)

But - the consideration of harmony is very much relaxed and never discussed much. It’s about the melody. We certainly didn’t talk much about individual notes over chords etc. And it leads to different results.

If that makes sense

It’s also important to note that Barry’s approach is not what I’d regard as the mainstream approach even for the pre Berklee era.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

So he is using G major scale with a #4 (lydian).

No. He is not. He chooses one of those sounds and uses it.

I believe you that he doesn't see it as the lydian scale.

So why the attachment to calling it “chord-scale” even when he explicitly rejects that conception, and it serves to obscure what he’s doing rather than elucidate it?

But does he see it as Gmajor chord with the extensions 9, #11, and 13?

No. He sees it as Em(2) or Bm(4) etc etc.

My point is that it's contrived to make a distinction between G Major scale with a #4 view (ie. chord-scale view) vs Gmajor7 with extensions 9, #11, 13 view.

You’re saying that the distinction between the two is contrived, but you’re kind of bending over backwards to make another approach fit into your definition here, which makes that definition itself feel contrived.

I am not sure how this relates to Jordan's approach.

Right. It doesn’t.

[pamosmusic]

For what it’s worth, I might say that your approach is contrived. Em(2) is specific, but you’re taking that along with say the D(2) and smushing it together and adding another passing note and saying it’s a “scale.”

Thats not what I would say, but it’s easy to see how your conception could seem manufactured as well.

Im not sure why I’d assume others are derivative of chord scales rather than vice versa except because I’d started with the chord scales and was more comfortable with that way of thinking.

[Tal_175]

I think you are missing the context. This is not how Barry conceptualised scales. The pitches are the same, but their use in his teaching are quite different.

If you use the scale as a collection of ‘good sounding’ pitches over a chord then that’s a chord scale. A scale used harmonically.

Barry was all about the line, not how individual notes or pitch sets sounded over a chord. Harmony was emergent from the line and consequently dynamic, moving and included dissonance.

Chord scales focus on colour over static chords.

In fact you could for instance take any chord scale you like and apply Barry’s line construction ideas to them. Barry himself focussed on dominant, major and minor but the DVDs themselves explain the rules can be applied to any scale you like.

Obviously if you apply the Barry harris rules to scales you need up playing all the extensions and so on you can imagine - if you choose to analyse things that way (you’ll find some funny notes too)

But - the consideration of harmony is very much relaxed and never discussed much. It’s about the melody. And it leads to different results.

If that makes sense

It’s also important to note that Barry’s approach is not what I’d regard as the mainstream approach even for the pre Berklee era.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let me see if I got the context.
You gave a definition for chord-scales.
Then you reiterated the importance of people using the same definition :

You do kind of have to agree to using the same definition of a word to meaningfully talk about something.

Then when I was talking about major scale with a #4 as described by Barry Harris, you said that it's not a chord-scale because if it's used with line building ideas like Barry Harris uses them pedagogically, they aren't chord-scales even if they may appear to conform to the definition in their construction you gave earlier.
Is that right?

[Tal_175]

No. He is not. He chooses one of those sounds and uses it.

No. He sees it as Em(2) or Bm(4) etc etc.

Then I am not sure why you give him as an example. His view is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
My statement is making a distinction between chord-scale vs chord tones with extensions is contrived. How does Jordan's approach relate to this?

[AdroitMage]

If this quote is actually something Charlie Parker said then it means that he started conceptualizing upper extensions of chords as available notes for making melodies with over the corresponding chords. This idea became something he was conscious of and deliberate about rather than using it viscerally or accidentally. It also means that he was under the impression that this was something new to jazz at the time.

I am not sure what distinction are you making between "melody" and "scale use" if the melody uses the notes of the scale. Chord-scales are a way of conceptualizing note collections as melodic material in harmony oriented (or chord specific) playing in this context (they are also a way of conceptualizing chord voicing construction using these note collections).

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.

You always have 7 notes available at all times, though, that's the major scale, you can always revert to that over any of the 7 chords in the key. We jazzers talk about chord tones so much because that is a good way to make your lines sound like they are going somewhere, say Bm9 E7b9 AMaj7#11, rather than just vaguely noodling in the key of A.

Where masters like Trane and Parker were coming from with it is more about having all 12 notes available at all times, because ultimately that's the place you want to get to with your improv, You want to get to the place where you have all 12 notes available at all times and your improv is purely based on melody (what you hear) not "finger patterns." Rather, you know what each note sounds like against any chord, and you play based off of what you hear going with that chord, not relying on "finger patterns" or anything, you just grab the notes you hear and try to pick the good ones; taking your playing even beyond scales, modes, and arpeggios. When you can do that effectively, then you are free, and you have total melodic control over what you are playing. The whole chord tone approach is still the foundation of everything, all the technicals of that are still there, and all the technique and embellishments that go hand in hand with creating exciting improvised language.

[Christian Miller]

Let me see if I got the context.
You gave a definition for chord-scales.
Then you reiterated the importance of people using the same definition :


Then when I was talking about major scale with a #4 as described by Barry Harris, you said that it's not a chord-scale because if it's used with line building ideas like Barry Harris uses them pedagogically, they aren't chord-scales even if they may appear to conform to the definition in their construction you gave earlier.
Is that right?

So it's a usage thing... it's not a chord-scale because it's not being used in the manner of a chord-scale. Which is to say when Barry is using a Db major scale with a G natural on the Db^7 chord he isn't thinking of it as a compressed D^13#11 voicing. He's thinking of it as a melodic scale. Then we can do stuff with arpeggios, passing tones and so on to make an idiomatic bop line.

Allan Holdsworth saw the same scale as a source of 'random access' notes that could generate much more non-tertian harmonic ideas. He saw the chord and scale as the same thing. Hence chord-scale. Modern players like Kurt and so on also use them this way. It's a distinctive way of using the scale and you can spot it when analysing a solo.

I mean, there is an overlap - they do use scale steps and thirds as well, but the concept of how these notes can be used is more open because they are all included in the general idea of the chord (except for avoid notes). Seven or eight notes that go with the chord, use them as you like!

So this might seem like a pedantic distinction, but it leads to a different usage of the notes.

But this discussion of Barry I actually think is quite irrelevant to the OP. That quote isn't using the same language as Barry used. He didn't use compound intervals for example. So if Bird said it, he was looking at things differently.

[GuyBoden]

Quote: "by using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes, I could play the thing I’d been hearing."

Charlie Parker plays the 11th over C7 in this solo fragment below.

Is this an example of a 'Higher Interval'?

[pamosmusic]

Then I am not sure why you give him as an example. His view is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
My statement is making a distinction between chord-scale vs chord tones with extensions is contrived. How does Jordan's approach relate to this?

Em/G still makes G6. Bm/G still makes Gmaj7. But the scale as a larger structure never factors in.

The fourth notes add some complexity but aren’t equals all the time. The triad notes are embellished with chromatic notes rather than scale step notes.

It’s a totally different thought process and often a very different result.

[Christian Miller]

So in the melody dewey square you have this line

D F Eb D C | B G Eb B G

With the first measure on Cm7 and the second measure on F7

Now the way you could analyse that is to go

Chord scales over each chord - C dorian, F lydian dominant (viewing the scales as voicings up from the root effectively)
Chord voicings - scale line then Eb+ triad on F7. The Eb+ on an F7 gives an overall F13#11 voicing.
Scales only - C melodic minor or possible C m6-dim over C-7 F7

Now Barry using the C minor scale might say - surround the 3rd, run down the scale to the 7, then play a descending arpeggio.

[Christian Miller]

Quote: "by using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes, I could play the thing I’d been hearing."

Charlie Parker plays the 11th over C7 in this solo fragment below.

Is this an example of a 'Higher Interval'?

Is there any more? Bebop is like German, the verb is at the end of the sentence.

At the moment I hear the D and F as an enclosure of the E and the Eb (D#) and the F# as lower neighbours. But depending what's on beat 1 might give it a different sense.

[Tal_175]

So it's a usage thing... it's not a chord-scale because it's not being used in the manner of a chord-scale. Which is to say when Barry is using a Db major scale with a G natural on the Db^7 chord he isn't thinking of it as a compressed D^13#11 voicing. He's thinking of it as a melodic scale. Then we can do stuff with arpeggios, passing tones and so on to make an idiomatic bop line.

Allan Holdsworth saw the same scale as a source of 'random access' notes that could generate much more non-tertian harmonic ideas. He saw the chord and scale as the same thing. Hence chord-scale. Modern players like Kurt and so on also use them this way. It's a distinctive way of using the scale and you can spot it when analysing a solo.

I mean, there is an overlap - they do use scale steps and thirds as well, but the concept of how these notes can be used is more open because they are all included in the general idea of the chord (except for avoid notes). Seven or eight notes that go with the chord, use them as you like!

So this might seem like a pedantic distinction, but it leads to a different usage of the notes.

But this discussion of Barry I actually think is quite irrelevant to the OP. That quote isn't using the same language as Barry used. He didn't use compound intervals for example. So if Bird said it, he was looking at things differently.

Yes, what you describe is a parallel application and in this case the resulting lines would be different than viewing from the root. But I was thinking about Barry Harris's approach for the IV chord of a major scale. I seem to remember him describing it as the major scale with a #4. He also referred to iii minor as minor with a b9. These were the applications I was thinking of.

[Christian Miller]

Yes, what you describe is a parallel application and in this case the resulting lines would be different than viewing from the root. But I was thinking about Barry Harris's approach for the IV chord of a major scale. I seem to remember him describing it as the major scale with a #4. He also referred to iii minor as minor with a b9. These were the applications I was thinking of.

Right, I mean that is just diatonic scale use. You'd have to think of something like this to improvise sequences within the key over movking chords/bass. For example, if I'm doing one of my baroque Partimento exercises up the scale or whatever. These scales came up in slowish fourthwise progressions like ATTYA.

This is not what I'm discussing. Im not talking about what the scales are I'm talking about how they are conceptualised and used. Barry is not using the scales as chord scales.

Barry AFAIK did not quite view scales as harmonic entities in that way. He saw them as the basis for lines. In fact improvisation and voicings were taught in separate classes. His scales for chords are the 8-note scales.

[Tal_175]

So in the melody dewey square you have this line

D F Eb D C | B G Eb B G

With the first measure on Cm7 and the second measure on F7

Now the way you could analyse that is to go

Chord scales over each chord - C dorian, F lydian dominant (viewing the scales as voicings up from the root effectively)
Chord voicings - scale line then Eb+ triad on F7. The Eb+ on an F7 gives an overall F13#11 voicing.
Scales only - C melodic minor or possible C m6-dim over C-7 F7

Now Barry using the C minor scale might say - surround the 3rd, run down the scale to the 7, then play a descending arpeggio.

Another one would be:

C min 7 with extensions 9, 11, 13 and F7 with extensions 9, #11, 13 (viewing from the root but as extensions instead of scale).

What I find contrived is making a distinction between this view and the view under Chord scales above.

[Christian Miller]

Another one would be:

C min 7 with extensions 9, 11, 13 and F7 with extensions 9, #11, 13 (viewing from the root but as extensions instead of scale).

What I find contrived is making a distinction between this view and the view under Chord scales above.

Well, I feel things have shifted here in terms of what you are arguing.

The original argument that Parker invented "chord scales" because of the quote above?

And my response to this is that I don't think you can draw that conclusion from the quote for two reasons - it might not be from him, and he didn't talk about scales.

There's also the small matter that Chord Scale Theory didn't seem to exist in the 1940's, although certain musicians were using a sort of proto-CST - chord scales rather than Chord Scales perhaps - and it may be Bird was aware of those ideas although this quote does not appear to be evidence of it and may not in fact be evidence of anything. (I also doubt it for a few reasons.)

So, now you saying that making a distinction between chord extensions and chord scale theory is contrived which is a seperate point.

There's two quite different ways to look at this assertion.

- From a tabula rasa ahistorical perspective (ie learning jazz in 2024) that may be arguable (or not). It may not make sense to make the distinction in the present day. Seperate discussion, nothing to do with how Bird or bop musicians conceptualised music.

- however, historically - which I think is what we are interested in - that doesn't seem a view held by many older generation players who thought in terms extensions but emphatically did not think in terms of chord scales. They viewed them simply as chords with extensions (and subs). This suggests that historically we can draw a distinction between the approaches.

(The Barry Harris discussion is kind irrelevant to that central point as it's another way of looking at it again, and Barry didn't really use the concept of upper extensions.)

I think that covers my thoughts on what's been raised so far.

Which is to say, maybe, as lack of evidence neither proves it not rules it out, but I suspect not.

[Tal_175]

Em/G still makes G6. Bm/G still makes Gmaj7. But the scale as a larger structure never factors in.

The fourth notes add some complexity but aren’t equals all the time. The triad notes are embellished with chromatic notes rather than scale step notes.

It’s a totally different thought process and often a very different result.

Yes the resulting notes are the same but the view is not Gmaj centric so to speak. We may not agree on this distinction. Jordan's approach looks interesting nevertheless, very different than how I view things.

[Tal_175]

I'm also done for today. Very good discussion as usual.

[AdroitMage]

All those lovely color tones, that's what makes everything sound sophisticated, hip, and beautiful.

Fa sho, put those in the mix, Kitty.

[RobSilver7]

Why do you think arpeggiation negates the scale view? A line that can be analyzed with chord-scales doesn't mean that the line is built strictly using scale steps, right?

Yes, but the arpeggiation opens up altered “tensions” (#9, b13, etc) that depart from the notes of the scale. Also, at least when I was a beginner, when I was taught “use scales”, I would run the scales and it would sound sorta OK but vague. Teaching “use scales” could promote that.

[Bobby Timmons]

Agree with Christian and Peter that there is a subtle difference between approaching melody naturally with the tools of the time such as licks, diatonic scales, harmony including extensions.. and full blown Abersold CST of associating a specific scale with every chord.

However, I also agree with Tal that I think Parker had some CST going in that he clearly used chord scales in his playing. Parker used diatonic scales, he used bebop scales, he manipulated minor scales, he used blues scale etc. He was very harmonic in his melody, he'd outline with arps a lot, but there is scalar material too where a specific scale will be associated with a chord. So I think he was absolutely proto-CST and thought that way even though there is no proof he thought that way. Only his music.

[pamosmusic]

Agree with Christian and Peter that there is a subtle difference between approaching melody naturally with the tools of the time such as licks, diatonic scales, harmony including extensions.. and full blown Abersold CST of associating a specific scale with every chord.

Really I just meant that there are ways of conceptualizing upper extensions that have little interest in chord-scales. Now as much as then.