-
Why would he have to use the altered scale to prove he thought of scales when he ran scales all over the place? So he used scales all the time but he never thought of them as scales? Is that what you're saying? I'd think that would more be the perspective which would require some sort of proof.
-
08-17-2024 04:22 PM
-
Bobby we’ve hit this shit about a hundred times by now.
Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
“using scales” is not the same as “chord scales thinking” as Tal would have us define it. Louis Armstrong and Lester Young ran scales all over the place too so there has to be a distinction.
Yes Bird used scales.
Yes he hit chord extensions.
Was he thinking of the particular intervals that scale implied over the Dm7 vs the G7 be the Cmaj? I don’t know, maybe. But I think generally when you analyze his music in those terms, it doesn’t tell you much. Analyzing it more in units and thinking about the melodic devices he employs seems to work an bit better and seems to jive more with the way other people talk about his music.
That doesn’t preclude his organizing extensions by various devices any more than playing a descending major scale implies he gave a shit about what intervals it implied over the G7 chord or whatever.
-
The thread isn't really about whether scales were used or not. Tal said that Dextor Gordon used scales but in a more key-centered way, for instance he might use just the Bb major scale or the Bb major pentatonic scale or the Bb blues scale over the A section of Rhythm Changes. It's more of a question did Parker associate a different scale with different chord types as I see it. Tal has a looser definition where as long as the improviser pays attention to the notes of a chord in any kind of systematic way then they are using chord scales. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
At this point we are really arguing about degrees, IMO. And in some sense, all of this is a personal choice as to how you want to view what Parker did. My own take is that it probably was a blend but I choose to focus more on some of the commonalities with earlier players than in the differences.
-
If you want to define the devices he used and therefore he thought of then that's fine. I kind of don't get it, but I'll listen. So he used scales but it wasn't chord scale thinking? Originally Posted by pamosmusic
He often did. If you analyze any tune in his omnibook. Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
I’m pretty thick, if it helps Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeah. I mean … chord-scales are when the scale is chosen because of a specific set of intervals it implies over the chord. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
It’s a very different orientation than just using scales. Or at least most people would consider it to be.
So like … I could see that ii-V-I as just a Cmajor key center and arpeggiate some chords etc. Or I could see it as D Dorian, G Mixolydian, and C Ionian. The notes themselves are the same, but the orientation to the music is very different.
Barry Harris, for example, is more concerned with whether or not a scale “comes out right” than what intervals are implied over which chord on which beat. The scale is connecting material, not necessarily something with profound harmonic implications in the moment.
Actually though … Barry might be the most interesting case. He has a lot to say about scales and how they’re placed and used. He’s not a perfect analog to Bird but he might be about as close as we can get … in particular with how well documented his thing is. As Christian mentioned, Dave Baker would be interesting too, though a bit further removed from Bird. With the way his bebop scales are much more explicitly meant to imply a particular harmony. Actually Jerry Bergonzi had a formulation for bebop mode scales that is cool.
-
^ I see what you're saying. I scanned the solo material on Dewey Square and most of the scalar passages fit into a chord scale pertaining to the chord. I don't know if you consider that chord scale thinking or not. There's major scale, bebop scale, mix, and mix flat 6.
Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 08-18-2024 at 01:50 AM.
-
Of course they do. I think what Charlie Parker (the JGO user) was saying about the altered scale wasn’t that you’d need to be using it to know if you’re thinking of chord scales, but that without some departure from the more conventional scale choices, it’d be impossible to know. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
I think maybe it would be more useful to think of the difference between Bird and early-middle Coltrane. Think of the way Bird might run a G dominant scale down over a ii/V in C to sort of get him down to the arpeggio he’s going to run up. Compare that to the way Coltrane might cascade through multiple arpeggios—Dm Em F G all in a row — over a single change to sort of exhaustively express the entire scale sound over the G7. Or the way he might throw a Bbmaj7 arpeggio over the Dm to imply a totally different scale sound than he’s putting over the G7. For Bird a scale is more a point a to point b thing, and for Coltrane it’s this fountain of harmonic information.
There’s loads of overlap in the harmonic information they both use and a lot of the stuff Coltrane does flows quite naturally from Charlie Parker (Zuckers “dodecaphonics” is a really nice encapsulation of some of this) but the orientation to harmony does feel different. The way we talk about it chord-scale playing is a (watered down) version of Coltrane’s thing. Not so much the way Bird seems to use scales
-
This one has wandered off a bit hasn’t it?
So we started off with - was Bird talking about chord scales and I think, charitably, the answer is that it is hard to tell.
Now we are talking about whether CST is a valid tool of analysis for bebop. Separate question.
In practical terms, I have two main issues with it, which aren’t deal breakers. Just things that should be considered.
1) there isn’t always a vertical relationship between the Cotm and the pitch choices. Sometimes you need to look at where things are headed.
2) CST isn’t nearly specific enough of itself to meaningfully describe note choices in bop
To be honest I see a lot of people on JGO worrying about ‘why things work’ or avoid notes or major sevenths on dominants or some such and I wonder if it’s just a load of baggage and you’d be better off not thinking about that stuff too much until you have to play Inner Urge or whatever.
But you know if you can apply a minor phrase on dominant chords and half dims you’ve learned all the melodic minor modes without having to play a scale.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I agree that Bird had the a to b, chromatic, BH stuff in his scalar material, but I also think he purposely outlined the harmony with it as well. I think he understood it to that level to throw in eloquent chromatic stuff and have it still outline the harmony with a scalar device tailored to the chord. Because sometimes he'd use notes only from a scale, and sometimes he'd manipulate it with other notes. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
I don’t know. Maybe. For what it’s worth he obviously understood the stuff that deeply. I’m not making a value judgement at all. In my younger years I was all Coltrane all the time, but after college or so, I’d probably rather be ears deep in the bebop stuff. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
And the using scales to outline harmony thing is really in dispute. Barry seems not to give much of a shit about that beyond landing on the right foot. Baker really does. My gut says Barry’s describes Birds playing a bit better and Bakers better describes guys like Mobley and Stitt who were really purposefully copping and trying to reproduce Birds thing. But honestly that’s way above my pay grade. No idea if that was a deliberate part of Birds playing or how well it describes reality beyond the (admittedly numerous) heads and (admittedly few) solos I’ve learned.
Christian would be able to say better than me, but he’d still be a couple millennia behind Barry and Dave Baker on knowing that music, so maybe that’s just one we’ll never know.
I guess one thing I would say I’ve been pretty convinced on is that I don’t think most musicians of Birds crew weren’t super concerned with the specific chord of the moment while they were improvising and were much much much more interested in the form and shape of tension and resolution. In that context, I think they probably wouldn’t mind just letting a scale be a scale. I think the need for that scale to be spelling an underlying chord is our own thing. Though Bakers stuff is proof positive that imagining it did spell a chord is a pretty decent way to get at the way the lines worked.
-
Not really, because there were repeatable instances where the melodic cell that Parker used over a chord was only the pertaining chord scale. So that would be more your opinion than what is suggested by his music. Again, all you have to do is scan any of his tunes' solo material in his real book. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Well maybe. But, then again, Charlie Parker didn’t write the chord symbols above his solos in the first edition of the Omnibook, so you’re just substituting your opinion for mine. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
Which was my point anyway. So all good.
-
Well ok. It still kind of seems like you're mad at theory. The chord symbols are largely accurate to what's going on in the music. Like they didn't have chords, arps, and scales back then..
-
Thats me. Mad at theory. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
-
-
At risk of repeating, I’ll park this here. Two ways to analyse the same phrase. I don’t think there’s much I’ve said here that isn’t demonstrated in this video.
In this one I’m kind of rejecting the whole idea of analysing birds lines as upper structures.
In this case I suppose you could see what I am looking at are the ‘appropriately related changes’ that bird played on a rhythm changes - but not all is choices have an obvious chord scale relationship to the vanilla changes. Some are clear weak side dissonances (or ‘outside’ as Peter calls them).
Using upper extensions well is something facilitated through this type of chord substitution as well as it being the old school way to do it and therefore probably how Bird was thinking…. One pitfall of using root based chord scales is you can end up emphasising the basic notes - you need to get good at not doing that. Not impossible, but something that you need to be careful of. Playing for instance a Dm7 on Bb brings out the sound of Bbmaj9 much more than naively playing Bb ionian up and down from the root.
This also relates to Jordan’s approach that Peter was talking about above which I regard as the superior way to approach colouristic extended jazz harmony.Last edited by Christian Miller; 08-18-2024 at 04:18 AM.
-
Well said. Even though the scale includes the upper structure, as a practical matter, if you practice scales you may be prone (don't ask me how I know) to playing intervals of a step or half step. If, instead, you think about a superimposed chord, you're more likely to play in thirds or whatever the intervals are in the chord.
None of this is what happens on your best day. Then, it's all sound and you pick the notes you want for the melody in your head. But, in the practice room, thinking about superimposed chords seems like a good idea. Also, when I hear something that catches my ear and I take the trouble to figure it out, it's often a simple, mostly arpeggiated, line played against something other than the usual chord. That is, a juxtaposition of arp A over chord B.
-
Wtf dude? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
It took you TWO HUNDRED POSTS to remember you made this video TWO YEARS ago?
You might just be a sociopath.
-
Yeah this is a great video and exactly on point. #christianhasavideoforthat or maybe … #thesobhadavideoforthatthiswholetime Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I’m not sure when this started but I really don’t look much at the chord changes to tunes when I’m transcribing solos anymore. It’s gotten to the point where I’ll decide to use part of a solo for a student or something and forget to put the changes back in. Though maybe that’s for the best. Or maybe I should just make them do it for themselves every time. I digress. Anyway … just generally, I always feel like I get more out of it that way and that I have a much looser and more creative idea of how to use them when I’m not all that worried about how the notes relate to the theoretical root. Even if I go back and use them in all the upper structure, chord scale kinds of ways I tend to.
I’ll also just point out that this particular comparison is exaggerated for effect and if someone were inclined to disagree with you based on this, they’d be well-served by watching the video because it’s more nuanced etc etc.Playing for instance a Dm7 on Bb brings out the sound of Bbmaj9 much more than naively playing Bb ionian up and down from the root.
Watch your language, Miller.
Yeah his approach always felt very not-bop to me, but I’ve been spending more time with it and I think it’s just as useful in bop as in anything else. Interesting stuff.This also relates to Jordan’s approach that Peter was talking about above which I regard as the superior way to approach colouristic extended jazz harmony.
-
That just means you are not practicing scales in a practical manner, they should be practiced in various intervals. In fact, since the chord tones can be derived from the scales, you can practice both at the same time by playing all the chord arpeggios from the scale, e.g., C Major would have CM7, Dm7, etc. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
Right. I often think the best way to teach a scale would be to never think of the notes in any particular order. I had practiced them too much in order before I figured this out. So, I agree with the point -- how you practice and how you think matter. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Then they would cease to be scales? Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
If the aim is to actually play jazz, one needs to master the elements of western music. Scales, old school scales and scale sequences and what have you, are very much part of that.
needless to say I have a video about this also
Jazz is full of scales going up and down and there’s nothing wrong with them. The reason why one’s scales might note sound great is largely phrasing.
So scales are one thing, upper extensions another. In the latter case you are better off approaching things as voicings or substitute chords in a traditional setting. CST folds them into the same system but really they are quite distinct topics.
In a more modern setting one can use different orderings of chord scales - fourths being a well known one, intervallic clusters and so on, but by this point you are moving away from the standard jazz language. (In fact modern players use the intervallic approach perhaps a little less than I may have implied above.) Nothing wrong with that - I do a lot of that stuff myself at the moment. But it’s good to know what you are trying to achieve.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Like I said, the chords can be found within the scales, so you can practice both at the same time. Seems to me that making them "distinct topics" can be counterproductive - or at least inefficient. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
To be fair, you are about 225 posts late to the chord scale party. A lot of this has been argued and argued again about fifteen times over. Originally Posted by Mick-7
Christian’s video was about as concise and practical an explanation as I can think of for why merging the arpeggios and scalds can also be inefficient in the wrong context.
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions