-
You must be talking about a different thread then.
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
08-17-2024 02:00 PM
-
No you’re just apparently not reading a word that anyone else is writing. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
This discussion has long past its sell by date, but without providing any musical examples to frame your thinking this discussion has been pretty vacuous, IMO. Originally Posted by Tal_175
It's not on others to do this for you. For example, in the Swedish Schnapps example, I didn't see much use of upper extensions, personally. I saw Parker playing a Gm7 arpeggio over C7.
-
The point of the thread doesn't depend on anyone else, it depends on the original post and the title. Now of course you are free to discuss other relevant subjects in the thread or even make it an everything jazz thread, but you can't make the original thread about something else. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Also summarized the purpose of my post before:
Some people associate chord scales with how it's used by some students of jazz. But I don't think there is a justification of seeing it as more than a unifying framework for some of the common harmonic and melodic elements of jazz. A lot of it has to do with the role the upper extensions play in the choices of chord voicings and improvisational ideas. There is also a bult-in chord in the moment perspective in chord scales when used improvisationally. The Charlie Parker quote shows many parallels with these considerations. That is why I decided to create this thread.
But again feel free to discuss other things as you wish.
-
Do you remember all the things you asked me since this thread has started? And I answered them but you keep moving on to different topics. There is only so many of these I can answer in one thread. Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
At this point you are refusing to engage in anyway with anyone. I don't remember you providing any musical examples. No. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
That wasn't my question. Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
Your question was dumb. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
The point is I don't make a living babysitting. Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
Wasn't much of a point. If you are alone here and multiple people are claiming you haven't explained your POV well and that musical anecdotes would help clarify and refuse to you either are trolling or aren't discussing in good faith or you are unable to. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
What I see is a few people beating around the bush because they refuse to acknowledge what am I saying. If still don't get what I am saying, you are free to not engage with the thread and move on. But you keep moving the goal post. I can't spend my weekend explaining you things. Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
Dude. I’ve said several times that there were people before Bird who improvised using chord extensions but you didn’t seem Originally Posted by Tal_175
terribly interested even though that would seem to address the title of your post on point.
You repeatedly referred me to posts 110 and 134 and insisted I respond to them specially. I did and you didn’t seem terribly interested in that.
You keep saying people are being too vague but when they post examples from real music, you aren’t interested in that either.
At this point, I have no clue what you’re after.
-
Lol. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Heres a thing one of my old teachers told me when I started teaching.
If one student doesn’t get it, it might be them.
If a few students don’t get it, it’s probably me.
If no one gets it, then I’ve really taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Consider for a moment that you’re actually not being as clear or insightful as you think you are. Or maybe you’re smarter than everyone else here and we’re all just dense.
-
I think there is a lot of talking over each other going on. For example I do think I responded to your criticism of my post 134. I'll take the time to expand on that, in turn please you tell me exactly what you disagree with what I'll tell you after. I'll post these shortly. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
You guys should be nice, like me
LOL
-
At this point I’ll hold you to the standard you’ve set for everyone else and tell you I don’t feel like reiterating all the stuff I’ve said thus far until you go back and find it and reply to it in detail. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
This is gonna be nerdy but I need to be specific.
So Christian gave an example device that is type of thing that can be seen in the lines of both a bop player and a modern player. That is playing Cmaj7#5 over D7 (post 132).
In my post (134) I reposted the definition:
“Chord-Scale Theory is an approach to improvising that relates chords to scales. The name “Chord-Scale Theory” comes from the idea that the notes of a thirteenth chord can be rearranged as a seven-note scale.”
One of the criticisms you said in response to my post was:
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
I said the answer to this can be found in Christian's example. You considered this as me ignoring it.
Like what can I say, Cmaj7#5 in the context of D7 represents these upper extensions (9, #11, 13). Yes, a chord that's voiced with 13 notes is rare and can only be found in a piano or big band arrangement, but that's not what the chord scale definition is talking about what referring to rearrangement. Like you know that. Is that still not clear?
-
Chord voiced with 7 notes, up to the 13th** Originally Posted by Tal_175
And the chord-scale definition is literally that the notes of a thirteenth chord can be rearranged and represented by a scale. Thats the definition you gave. I was saying that in the music of Charlie Parker’s day (or any other day, including our own) a thirteenth chord, or any other collection of upper extensions doesn’t need to imply the presence of all the other upper extensions. So Charlie Parker referencing upper extensions wouldn’t really imply that he felt it necessary to conceive of them in any particular collection, or that one extension implied the presence of another in a way that would lead to a recognizable chord-scale. Christian has said several times here and in other places that Pre-1960 jazzers were way more liberal with their use of extensions, mixing and matching extensions on the same change that wouldn’t really be at home in any chord scale we would recognize. That is absolutely born out in the literature … check out how Bird navigates a rhythm changes bridge on any rhythm changes tune (or maybe the famous solo in the third eight of the Scrapple melody) and you'll often see an implied ii chord in the first measure followed by some unusual extensions in the next measure and, taken together, they show a really loose and free understanding of how to organize extensions and color that doesn’t fit neatly into the framework you’re laying out. So maybe Charlie Parker places more emphasis on upper extensions than his forebears did (I’m not super convinced but I’d believe it), but it doesn’t really mean “chord scale” is a useful term for describing what is happening.
-
When I’m thinking of tunes where this framework might be useful, I’m coming up with Donna Lee and Half Nelson.
I think some BH-adjacent dominant scales and devices framework fits better, but that could be kind of Chord-Scale-adjacent.
Anyway … what do they have in common?
-
You are cycling back to the points I feel I addressed several times. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
In this specific point I was saying that the following is a misrepresentation of the concept of a chord scale. The other points in your post has been discussed.
The thirteenth chord as an uninterrupted stack of thirds is a theoretical construct on its own, ... Think of how that voicing is realized on a piano or in a big band in practice.
Everytime I create a thread I end up feeling like it is such a waste of time and promise myself never to do it again.
There is a quote of Charlie Parker saying he liked using upper intervals. There is an article posted on the thread where someone who played with him saying the same thing. Do people really believe that it would be that difficult to find a Charlie Parker line that's consistent with the quote? Or do some consider the upper intervals (or extensions) a very esoteric concept? It isn't. It's hard for me to consider it a sincere request especially coming from those who I'm sure have no trouble identifying upper intervals.
Anyway I am not gonna spend more time on this. Have fun with the thread.
-
Ah yes well. The injustice of it all. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Well you need proof with these guys. And even then it can still be an enormous struggle. Theory is always guilty until proven innocent on this forum. A thread where CP might have said something about theory isn't going to go too well if the mad at theory pack has anything to say about it lol. Sorry, they were working me a lot so I didn't have time to participate in the thread. Was busy chasing after theifs. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
This has been a giant thread and you have expectation that we will remember every key point you made. And an essential problem here is that you are using the term chord-scale in a somewhat unorthodox way. As I remember it, you have stated that you are making the distinction between a key-centered approach to a chord-centric approach. If we want to be that broad, in our definition, of what a chord scale is then, yes, Bird probably used this at times. Originally Posted by Tal_175
But for most of us, it isn't that easy for us to divorce your conception of a chord-scale from the more standard definition.
I think most of us would agree that Bird thought about chord tones and the upper extension of chords. Where I and I am guessing others diverge is whether or not this should be thought of or called a scale for the specific reasons that Peter and Christian pointed out. For all we know Bird considered the entire chromatic scale to be playable over a dominant chord which leaves you with 8 possible upper extensions to play. At the very least, Christian and Peter have pointed out these extensions are changing from verse to verse so either he is thinking of a different chord/chord-scale each time or he is freer with his applications of tensions which would nullify the idea of these as scales.
In the end, I agree that Bird probably thought about upper extensions and chords, but I can't make the leap that he thought of a 7 or 8 note collection to associate with different chords which for me is the hallmark of a chord scale.
-
^ He literally straight ran chord scales over chords at times if you open up his omnibook (or transcribe). So I'm pretty sure he thought of 7 and 8 note collections unless you're bound and determined to revise history to suit your perspective.
-
An example would help. Just because 7 or 8 notes in a measure doesn't necessarily mean he was thinking of a chord scale. I would love to find a measure or 2 in the Omnibook where he used just the notes of the altered dominant scale. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions