Rhythm Changes A section, who is playing on each chord?

[GuyBoden]

You can use the Barry harris added note rules with chord scales. For example if you have the altered add in notes between 1 and b7 when descending for a very simple example. Or any of the more complex rules.

But the Barry stuff is looser than it might look at first glance. I like the way he teaches though because he gives you something very concrete that sounds good right away and then loosens it up later

Very true, CST with "added note rules" would probably have been a better method, I later got my "added chromatic notes" knowledge from the David Baker Bebop Books, but 20-25+ years ago I was taught CST without chromatics.

But, recently this year I looked into BH more complex added note rules:
David Baker Bebop Scales — Barry Harris half-steps -----Complex Added Note Rules
David Baker Bebop Scales — Barry Harris half-steps

I do use some of these everyday during practice/playing.

[pamosmusic]

I guess you have the statistics on that. However I hear pianists playing the changes all the time. Not saying that all pianist use CST, but a lot do. To each their own.

No, you’d need to look at some transcriptions.

[spencer096]

It’s not coming. Best you’ve gotten is people telling you that it’s necessary with no example.

here you go

https://www.jazzninja.com/storage/tr...ll%20Score.pdf

[pamosmusic]

here you go

https://www.jazzninja.com/storage/tr...ll%20Score.pdf

He plays a B natural about as often as he plays Bb over that G7. Which combined is about as often as he avoids them altogether.

Hes way more specific with the Edim and in every case it’s an ascending diminished arpeggio, almost always from C#, almost every case it’s a cool little sequence with Eb7 so that’s kind of what I’m talking about with those sort of set piece licks over the lightning fast changes.

A few of those with G7 too, like in bar three of the first solo chorus. He uses the exact same lick in the third bar, second A, third chorus. Another place he uses the B natural is bar 3 of the second chorus, and he uses the same lick in bar 3, last A, last chorus.

That’s pretty common.

[P4guitar]

So, the main reason I don't use CST is because CST has no additional Chromatic notes.

That's a very restricted view of CST, IMO. CST is merely a framework for consonant note selection, not a religion excluding all notes outside the chosen scale. But sure, use what you want. I certainly do.

[P4guitar]

No, you’d need to look at some transcriptions.

Why? I didn't make the claim, you did.

And I acknowledge that you might be right that historically people didn't use CST which seems to have originated in the jazz schools decades ago. But a lot of prominent people came out of those CST schools so it's reasonable to assume CST is prominent in their tool kit. I use CST because I'm self taught and it was the only thing I could figure out that worked in most cases.

What's your approach to tunes like "Giant Steps", "Moments Notice", etc. that don't work well with key center or blues paradigms?

Assuming you play some solo guitar where you're improvising both the melody and the harmony, how do you go about it without reference to CST? Aren't you picking notes that use the guide tones of the chord of the moment or are part of your chosen scale? This is not an attack, but genuine curiosity of the various conceptual frameworks people employ to improvise music.

Lastly, the OP wanted to know how people approach Rhythm changes. I put in my two cents advising learning CST. I acknowledge other approaches (key center, blues, etc.) can work but they're not one size fits all. A CST approach allows one to do almost everything because it doesn't exclude anything else. Where am I wrong about that?

[Christian Miller]

I mean really chord scale theory is a theory of extended voicings. So why would it discuss chromatic passing tones etc?

Some lines can be understood as articulated or arpeggiated voicings including intervallic chord scales things. Some lines are more dynamic and have many non harmonic notes.

[Christian Miller]

Why? I didn't make the claim, you did.

And I acknowledge that you might be right that historically people didn't use CST which seems to have originated in the jazz schools decades ago. But a lot of prominent people came out of those CST schools so it's reasonable to assume CST is prominent in their tool kit. I use CST because I'm self taught and it was the only thing I could figure out that worked in most cases.

What's your approach to tunes like "Giant Steps", "Moments Notice", etc. that don't work well with key center or blues paradigms?

Assuming you play some solo guitar where you're improvising both the melody and the harmony, how do you go about it without reference to CST? Aren't you picking notes that use the guide tones of the chord of the moment or are part of your chosen scale? This is not an attack, but genuine curiosity of the various conceptual frameworks people employ to improvise music.

Lastly, the OP wanted to know how people approach Rhythm changes. I put in my two cents advising learning CST. I acknowledge other approaches (key center, blues, etc.) can work but they're not one size fits all. A CST approach allows one to do almost everything because it doesn't exclude anything else. Where am I wrong about that?

I mean that’s kind of big question to frame in terms of JGO comment

Short answer is all sorts of ways, but one of the most common ways to achieve fluent and idiomatic improvisation came about after the bop era, where players transcribed and transposed bird II V licks through tunes until they built up a really good vocabulary of the stuff. Generations of players did that and it’s still taught.

There is no single greater example of this than Coltrane’s solo on Giant Steps.

So rather than building lines from the ground up this was about lifting and repurposing material. Players working this way can sound very good and ‘like jazz’ in a short space of time and I kind of regard it as a good ‘stage one’ for most players getting started with jazz.

I think people today often assume that improvisation is about inventing music out of whole cloth, while the musicians of the bop era were most often working with other people’s material (usually Charlie Parker’s tbh) and turning it into their own thing.

The amount of analysis you do on that material may vary on inclination and interest.

On a personal note people often express to me a disconnect between where they get with chord scales and ‘sounding like jazz.’ A bit of the above is a good corrective. It’s actually pretty mainstream in colleges and so on and manifestly works.

It’s not the only approach.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Why? I didn't make the claim, you did.

If someone is suggesting that you can see how people approach rhythm changes by transcribing rhythm changes, and my response is “why” … then I’ve probably let my theoretical framework get in the way of my practical application.

What's your approach to tunes like "Giant Steps", "Moments Notice", etc. that don't work well with key center or blues paradigms?

For what it’s worth here, I’d be willing to go out on a bit of a limb and suggest that the CST approach is probably derived from Coltrane’s sheets of sound thing. So asking how someone would approach complex Coltrane compositions without CST isn’t super useful. The OP was about rhythm changes.

And also …

Assuming you play some solo guitar where you're improvising both the melody and the harmony, how do you go about it without reference to CST? Aren't you picking notes that use the guide tones of the chord of the moment or are part of your chosen scale? This is not an attack, but genuine curiosity of the various conceptual frameworks people employ to improvise music.

I have already said I use CST in my own practicing quite a lot. I have also said I wasn’t really taking issue with CST but with the practical applications of using CST **on every written change of a rhythm changes.**

Lastly, the OP wanted to know how people approach Rhythm changes. I put in my two cents advising learning CST. I acknowledge other approaches (key center, blues, etc.) can work but they're not one size fits all. A CST approach allows one to do almost everything because it doesn't exclude anything else. Where am I wrong about that?

It doesn’t exclude anything else?

Blues doesn’t really include some of those CST sounds. Sure. Does CST include those blues sounds?

Again, granting that I use CST a ton, I actually kind of think the biggest limitation I’ve found with it for myself is that there’s no blues in it. Jazz without blues is …. dunno …. Something else.

EDIT: this comment …

On a personal note people often express to me a disconnect between where they get with chord scales and ‘sounding like jazz.’ A bit of the above is a good corrective. It’s actually pretty mainstream in colleges and so on and manifestly works.

true for me too … and I think that blues piece is a big part of what’s missing. Other things too. Idiomatic stuff.

[deacon Mark]

I do not generally go to the blues sound and follow the changes. Sometimes I can manage the 2 beat changes and apply them as such. I think the real question is what changes do you actually like the most or use. That would be the point for playing. It could be a whole other topic but here are my preferred Rhythm Changes

/ Bbmaj7 Gmin7 / Cmin7 F7 / Dmin7 Dbdim7 / Cmin7 F7 / Fmin7 Bb7 / Ebmaj7 Ab7 / Dim7 G7 / Cmin7 F7 /

The typical bridge is fine nothing changes to drastic at the bridge. I find the movement in the chords I use to be a bit more interesting. I do admit though if I get off track or distracted to need to regroup the blues scale can save your butt. I think in practice if you can treat each chord separate you are ahead of the game but once you are soloing on the gig it becomes more of a playing muscle memory and ear then thinking too much.

[rpjazzguitar]

Now I'm no longer sure I understand the boundaries of CST. These are real questions, not a troll.

If I think Bb major scale and then adjust two notes for the G7 in bar 2 of RC, or not, is that CST? Or do I have to think G mixo to call it CST?

If I think Galt or Abmelmin against a G7 headed towards Cmaj7, is that CST? Or is it only CST if I'm thinking Gmixo?

If I try to think in 13th chords is that CST?

If I buy the idea of avoid notes (which tends to be controversial or so it seems) and I think in hexatonics, is that CST?

As a digression, at times I get upset because I'm such a vanilla player. But, when I dig into it, what helps is not a theory of note choice, but rather, paying attention to chord sequences played with crackling time feel. Building vocabulary via transcription would also help. And, finally, getting really good at applying the simple stuff before progressing to more arcane aspects of theory.

[Christian Miller]

You know I think 85% of CST is names for stuff. You see an Ab7#11 chord and you say ‘ooh Ab Lydian dominant’. You see E7b5b13 and you say ‘E altered.’

Depending on what flavour you use you might transform chords to a small number of ‘parent scales’ - for example C7#11 you use G melodic minor. A lot of great players did this, from Allan Holdsworth to Emily Remler and it’s not that far away from Barry Harris. So in that case you are no longer thinking in modes but major, minor etc.

So I’m not 100% sure if that counts as CST or not tbh. I tend to think not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

Now I'm no longer sure I understand the boundaries of CST. These are real questions, not a troll.

If I think Bb major scale and then adjust two notes for the G7 in bar 2 of RC, or not, is that CST? Or do I have to think G mixo to call it CST?

If I think Galt or Abmelmin against a G7 headed towards Cmaj7, is that CST? Or is it only CST if I'm thinking Gmixo?

If I try to think in 13th chords is that CST?

If I buy the idea of avoid notes (which tends to be controversial or so it seems) and I think in hexatonics, is that CST?

As a digression, at times I get upset because I'm such a vanilla player. But, when I dig into it, what helps is not a theory of note choice, but rather, paying attention to chord sequences played with crackling time feel. Building vocabulary via transcription would also help. And, finally, getting really good at applying the simple stuff before progressing to more arcane aspects of theory.

You're thinking only in terms of scale notes, it's not just the notes of a scale but also it's harmonic make up, the diatonic chords in it.

Per your example, I'd think of G7 as the V7 of Cm7, the IIm7 chord in Bb major, which suggests the C minor scale(s) and their notes: Eb,
Ab/A, Bb/B - which also work over all the other chords in Bb major: Cm7, Dm7(b5/b9), Eb^7(#11/#5), F7(b5/#9), Gm7, Am7b5.

You know I think 85% of CST is names for stuff. You see an Ab7#11 chord and you say ‘ooh Ab Lydian dominant’. You see E7b5b13 and you say ‘E altered.’ Depending on what flavour you use you might transform chords to a small number of ‘parent scales’ - for example C7#11 you use G melodic minor.

That doesn't really work in practice, since no chord is an island, it's harmonic function will imply the associated scales, not vice versa.

[P4guitar]

You know I think 85% of CST is names for stuff. You see an Ab7#11 chord and you say ‘ooh Ab Lydian dominant’. You see E7b5b13 and you say ‘E altered.’

An interesting point. To me CST is merely assigning potential scales to chords that fit within those scales and changing them as the chords change. What you wrote above is exactly what I do.

Depending on what flavour you use you might transform chords to a small number of ‘parent scales’ - for example C7#11 you use G melodic minor. A lot of great players did this, from Allan Holdsworth to Emily Remler and it’s not that far away from Barry Harris. So in that case you are no longer thinking in modes but major, minor etc.

Interesting. I still look at the above as assigning scales to chords, or alternatively the chord and its context define possible scales. Maybe I'm missing your point.

So I’m not 100% sure if that counts as CST or not tbh. I tend to think not.

I think it describes CST well.

[P4guitar]

Now I'm no longer sure I understand the boundaries of CST. These are real questions, not a troll.

My untutored belief is that CST is simply assigning scales to chords to develop a set or sets of hopefully good sounding note choices.

If I think Bb major scale and then adjust two notes for the G7 in bar 2 of RC, or not, is that CST? Or do I have to think G mixo to call it CST?

The first part is not what I'd call CST, it's what I think of as the keycentric approach which in your example above requires playing outside the scale because it doesn't fit both chords . The second part adjustment is CST, although G mixo would not be my choice.

If I think Galt or Abmelmin against a G7 headed towards Cmaj7, is that CST? Or is it only CST if I'm thinking Gmixo?

You're assigning a scale (Galt, Abmelmin, Gmix, anything else) to a chord so it's CST. As a matter of personal taste, the chosen scale would ideally encompass the chord. Again CST is assigning possible scales to chords that hopefully sound good to you.

If I try to think in 13th chords is that CST?

The quality of the chord doesn't matter. CST applies to all chords.

If I buy the idea of avoid notes (which tends to be controversial or so it seems) and I think in hexatonics, is that CST?

I don't buy the avoid note stuff, but it's irrelevant here. If you use hexatonics, you're still assigning a scale, a hexatonic scale, to a chord or possibly several chords and that's CST.

As a digression, at times I get upset because I'm such a vanilla player. But, when I dig into it, what helps is not a theory of note choice, but rather, paying attention to chord sequences played with crackling time feel. Building vocabulary via transcription would also help. And, finally, getting really good at applying the simple stuff before progressing to more arcane aspects of theory.

You know you best so do what you think is right for you.

[rpjazzguitar]

You're thinking only in terms of scale notes, it's not just the notes of a scale but also it's harmonic make up, the diatonic chords in it.

Per your example, I'd think of G7 as the V7 of Cm7, the IIm7 chord in Bb major, which suggests the C minor scale(s) and their notes: Eb,
Ab/A, Bb/B - which also work over all the other chords in Bb major: Cm7, Dm7(b5/b9), Eb^7(#11/#5), F7(b5/#9), Gm7, Am7b5.

That doesn't really work in practice, since no chord is an island, it's harmonic function will imply the associated scales, not vice versa.

If you think of the G7 as the V7 in Cm, and then you accept the usual four minor scales (every combo of 6 and 7) -- if I understand your post, that's what you're proposing -- then you get 9 notes. The chromatic scale minus Db, Gb and E.

This could be used to explain the observation made earlier that Charlie Parker played both Bb and B, at different times.

Seems to me that I might have a chance of getting there by thinking G7 vs G7#9 vs G7b9 vs G7b9#9 vs G7b9#9b13 ... umm ... maybe not. Starts getting complicated.

I'd find it easier to strum through RC a few times, varying the version of the Gdominant chord until I found a couple that I could hear easily. Like G7#9b13. And, get those working in tunes before I went back to the well to try to find another version or two of the G7 chord.

It's a familiar issue. With the theory providing many more options than I can assimilate.

[P4guitar]

For what it’s worth here, I’d be willing to go out on a bit of a limb and suggest that the CST approach is probably derived from Coltrane’s sheets of sound thing. So asking how someone would approach complex Coltrane compositions without CST isn’t super useful.

That's quite a limb. I have my doubts about that. But, so what?

The OP was about rhythm changes.

Yes. I still argue it's good to apply CST to Rhythm changes. That doesn't mean one HAS to use CST, but that's it's an acquirable skill that can pay off a lot.

I have already said I use CST in my own practicing quite a lot. I have also said I wasn’t really taking issue with CST but with the practical applications of using CST **on every written change of a rhythm changes.**

What's wrong with developing this skill? Again, I've repeatedly said it's not the only way, it's just a very good skill to have in improvisation.

It doesn’t exclude anything else?

Blues doesn’t really include some of those CST sounds. Sure. Does CST include those blues sounds?

Again, granting that I use CST a ton, I actually kind of think the biggest limitation I’ve found with it for myself is that there’s no blues in it. Jazz without blues is …. dunno …. Something else.

Blues is a scale. I use blues on particular chords occasionally - that's still CST. Furthermore, many people play over alternate chords from the written changes and if they're assigning scales to the chords they're playing, not those the sheet music or band is playing, it's still CST.

[rpjazzguitar]

The first part is not what I'd call CST, it's what I think of as the keycentric approach which in your example above requires playing outside the scale because it doesn't fit both chords . The second part adjustment is CST, although G mixo would not be my choice.
.

If I think of Bb tonal center and I adjust the Bb to B and the Eb to E, the result is the same notes as Gmixo, but I'm getting there with a different thought process.

So, is CST dependent on a particular thought process, irrespective of the notes that result?

Or am I just beating the usual dying horse of trying to define a term which has no standard definition?

In general, I find it easier to identify the desired sound by altering the chords while comping, well, one chord at a time. So, I'd rather think G7 or G7#9b13 than to think in terms of scale names.

But, clearly, some players have put in the work and can do it with scale names. And, I can see that it has its advantages once you've done the work.

[Mick-7]

If you think of the G7 as the V7 in Cm, and then you accept the usual four minor scales (every combo of 6 and 7) -- if I understand your post, that's what you're proposing -- then you get 9 notes. The chromatic scale minus Db, Gb and E.

I was just saying that a chord progression implies a tonality and its associated scale(s), whereas an individual chord may not.

[AllanAllen]

CST seems like a lot of mental gymnastics.

Too bad we don’t have a codified system like this for phrasing and comping rhythms.

[rpjazzguitar]

I agree about the mental gymnastics and I also see the fundamental benefit of considering that a chord is, or implies, or something, a scale.

Where the gymnastics can get overwhelming is illustrated by that G7. You can start with G mixo; simple enough. If you then decide to flat the E, you've got 5th mode Cmelmin. If, instead, you flat the B, you've got G dorian. If you flat both the B and the E, you've got G aeolian.

If you start over with Gmixo and flat just the A, that's fifth mode C harmonic minor (G phrygian dominant). Flat both the A and the B, and it's second mode Fmelmin. Flat the A B and E and it's third mode Ebmajor. G phrygian?

So, what could be simply thinking about substitutions for G7 ends up being a tour of Ancient Greece plus some other nomenclature.

In the end, it seems to me, you need to relate all those names, should you choose to use them, to the alterations of the G7 chord, so you can both solo and comp using these ideas.

And, if my experience is any guide at all, you have to absorb those sounds one at a time.

[Christian Miller]

An interesting point. To me CST is merely assigning potential scales to chords that fit within those scales and changing them as the chords change. What you wrote above is exactly what I do.



Interesting. I still look at the above as assigning scales to chords, or alternatively the chord and its context define possible scales. Maybe I'm missing your point.



I think it describes CST well.

I think it could be. Berklee online says:

“The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord”

Converting to a parent scale represents an extra step, but falls within that remit. So OK

To me the central tenet of the theory is that you have a seven note pitch set that less avoid notes represents the ‘good sounding notes.’

Also having ordered a 13th chord as a scale they then like to tell you not to play it as a scale haha.

(I have so many problems with this basic pedagogical framing haha. I mean … what?)

If we get rid of the scale name stuff which is actually neither here nor there really, it’s kind of the same thing as chord tone soloing only instead of three or four notes you have six or seven. You could name the chord scales after the 13th chords and no information would be lost.

These pitch sets can be ordered how you like - scales, thirds, intervallic patterns etc - in standard CST and that’s about it really.

(That’s debatable by the way - see Warne Marsh etc.)

I tend to separate Barry out from this approach a bit because although there’s areas of overlap (pace Barry) his teaching is very different. Most importantly, he doesn’t do this irritating thing I associate with post CST improv teaching where the teacher says ‘oh you are free to do what you like but these notes, and not those ones, and try not to do that either’ but rather ‘play this, it sounds great. This is how I came up with it. Here’s some ways we could change it and it still sounds awesome.’ Which I think is better teaching.

No reason why you couldn’t teach CST that way, it’s just that some books and educators seem to do it that way.

But otoh if you’ve learned jazz language and feel CST opens up options. That was its original purpose. I practice variants on CST stuff a lot at the moment, believe it or not. But I’ve done masses of work on the other stuff, so I don’t feel what I play doesn’t sound like jazz.

The other issue with CST is people can get the false impression that all note choices are related to the Chord of the Moment, rather than looking for more dynamic and goal oriented approaches to harmony which is super important in bebop for example. Everything is 11 over this and 13 over that.

Also people who focus only on CST can get weirdly worried about dissonance, because CST only deals with notes that sound cool over a chord in isolation. (Well, sort of. There’s issues with it.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

That doesn't really work in practice, since no chord is an island, it's harmonic function will imply the associated scales, not vice versa.

I think you missed what I meant - if you know the extensions of the chords you can name the scale. But knowing the scale name actually adds no info. You could call a Lydian dominant scale a 13#11 scale and it would be the same thing.

If the chord is not heavily extended you need context. So, in the case of a functional jazz standard you would need to know the extensions suggested by a given key, which is actually completely obvious if you play a little piano, which is where CST of course comes from.

Otoh if I saw a chord in a non functional tune the extensions are likely strongly implied if not explicitly stated.

However - that said, jazz musicians have not always played chords diatonically. Go and listen to Charlie Christian in minor keys. He treats dominant chords like islands. Trane and his school loved diminished on every dominant.

OTOH the suggestions of what to play on common standards keys made by CST differ from the most obvious diatonic ones. So V altered in minor, for example, rather than the diatonic I harmonic or melodic minor scale. A certain amount of this is a stylistic choice but that isn’t always made plain.

Tbh when I read musicians of Mark Levine’s generation there seems a cultural assumption that post-modal jazz is what everyone should want to be playing and kind of jazz’s final form. But that was an era when all the heavy hitters of that world were around and gigging hard, so it makes sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strat-itis]

I was just wondering to myself today, on the Rhythm Changes A section, which of the greats was playing on every chord of the I VI II V? And who was playing some simpler version? I I V V or something like that?

I obviously need to do some listening. I imagine Lester Young would play a lot of simplified stuff but the beboppers would play more of the changes but maybe not.

Yes, the answer is to listen.

ONLY THE BASS outlines each chord. The piano follows the contours of the changes, but doesn't pound out every single change. And the sax or soloist makes broad generalizations, prioritizing the flow of the melody.

[Mick-7]

I think you missed what I meant - if you know the extensions of the chords you can name the scale .... in the case of a functional jazz standard you would need to know the extensions suggested by a given key

That is what I meant when I said that the tonality (key) implies the associated scale(s).

But I'm not sure what you mean by "if you know the extensions of the chords" - The extensions I want to use?

- because there are scales that don't imply a particular chord and will work over quite a few chords, for example [from my Slonimsky thread]: