Is Chord Scale Theory Crap?

[docbop]

Just stumbled on this new to me, but in the three video Bill Evans so many great comments on teaching and learning.
I like his comment about not showing student too much so they can get the joy of discovery themselves. Which is a problem I see in the internet world of learn students looking for answers first before trying to workout or discover on their own.

[Spirit59]

Video clip of the day! At first I thought it was overdubbed. Did they really name check Lennie Tristano?

That wasn't overdubbed, yes they really mentioned LT.

[tallermanwithguitar.com]

No. It is important for a thorough understanding of harmony. The problems are when (1) it is taught as a replacement for traditional functional harmony (Aldwell & Schachter, Piston, etc.) when it is better to approach it as supplement and extension of, rather than replacement; and (2) when people teach it as an improvisation method: telling someone to play D dorian over Dm7 isn't anymore helpful than telling them to play Dm7 over Dm7 when they don't know what to do with it. Learning improvisation is better approached by studying melodic development and embellishment techniques and developing vocabulary and repertoire.

This is very much how I see CST and the unfortunate way it is often used.

CST is a great diagnostic tool to verbally explain what is happening musically and it is a fine tool for investigating sounds and/or creating landscape to compose from, but it a horrible tool for improvising.

I think though that many people who think they are using CST to improvise are making a mistake about what they are actually doing.

What I believe that most, if not all, of them are actually doing is simply superimposing a lick that they created in their practice time over a chord, but because they go through the process of seeing a chord, then thinking of a scale/mode (really the name only), and then having this trigger them playing a pre-rehearsed lick, that they are improvising.

That's not improvising. Improvising is playing what your "ear" hears.

I will grant that many who use other means of organizing their playing make a similar mistake, but I think that CST creates a bigger delusion because it is so thorough and systematized and it is also less workable in genuine improv for the same reason.

[rodolfoguitarra]

"This whole thing of learning to improvise via chord scales is very useful, but it can be deceiving. All seven notes of a chord scale are not equal - some are definitely stronger than others. So I encourage people to play entire solos only using chord tones, not using any approach notes or scale notes at all, but only using the three or four basic notes of whatever the chord is. The idea is to be able to play melodies using only arpeggios, but not making them sound like arpeggios."
"If you can do that, then you have in your mind what the strong target notes are and you can start going in with the other notes of the scale. When you're hitting the main chord tones pretty hard and you've got the other scale tones as passing notes then you can start goin g for the other chromatic tones. It's really four chord tones, three other scale tones and five chromatic tones."

´´you really do have to learn ALL the basics first. i always encourage people to be able to improvise just using the chord tones themselves too. with just the 3, 4 or 5 notes of basic harmony suggested by the actual chord, a good improvisor can find lots of things to play. sometimes the scale thing messes people up too cause they THINK of it as a scale- it's really just a set of available tones. better to practice them out of order´´

´´Basically my point would be that the "chord scale" system as it has evolved underestimates the value of the main chord tones and by working on direct arpeggios etc. you get more of a sense of the intrinsic voice leading that can occur as you move around´´

QUOTES BY PAT METHENY

[christianm77]

Oh man what a name for a thread!

I haven'thad the patience to sift through everyone elses posts, but there are some good ones here.

My own story:
1) Started CST - found things like Rhythm Changes very difficult.
2) Became an arpeggio player - helped an awful lot
3) Started transcribing a lot
4) Carried on refining arpeggio technique
5) Come back to scales again and am loving them

I realised that the secret is to play phrases and music, that combine scales, arpeggios together. This is not done in an intellectual way but intuitively, with a variety of rhythms and phrasing.

My understanding is that fundamentally, the building blocks of jazz improvisation are the rhythms. What one needs to do with the harmony is to be able to freely create melodies based on those rhythmic phrases through the changes.

The way you do this can vary - for example there are many players who get on great with CST and use only that. Others find other approaches work better. The issues with CST can easily be addressed if the musician using it has a sensitive an developed ear. I did not have good ears when I was starting, so it was good for me to go through chord tones, and above, all learning solos and listening closely to music.

On the other hand, it sounds like it worked right away for Gary Burton (perfect pitch!)

Arguably, then CST (or any music theory) is essentially worthless, as the real thing is to be able to play convincing musical phrases. I'm not sure myself. I find if I start playing a particular type of harmony I get into that sound. Melodic minor harmony is definitely a thing. I don't always like to use it, and I'm glad I've got a whole range of options. I can use the melodic minor when I really want to stretch open a chord in that modern kind of way. It's a great sound to have at you disposal, provided you are hearing it.

That said, there are plenty of greats who don't advocate scale based improvisation at all. My own advice would be - learn your chord tones and go from there.... Improvise as intuitively as you can and use your ears....

TL;DR: What Pat Metheny said

[christianm77]

I was working on an advice segment on Jazzadvice relating to use of melodic minor. I learned all the diatonic major and minor scales as a kid taking classical lessons, but I was never formally schooled as to "use this scale over the V7 chord" for melodic or harmonic ideas. As I was messing with the scale outlined starting on the fourth interval from the C root or F note, it was suggested that this Lydian scale (if I recall) worked nicely over V dominant 7ths. But as I played through the scale as written in the notation, I noticed that, as I descended down that the highest note as written that one note really didn't sound right and that in a real life example I would have played that note as a flat rather than a natural.

And it occurred to me that perhaps one of the problems I have is this - it is hard to play notes and intervals that you don't hear as 'beautiful' or tuneful or right, whatever term you prefer. As a classically trained player, I am grounded in what I would call classic 'functional' harmony. If I am using that term incorrectly, feel free to give me another label, but I'm sure you know what I mean. The harmony of Dowland, Bach, et al. through the early twentieth century. I certainly played twentieth century pieces by composers like Britten and Martin who used "dissonance", so it's not that I find dissonance objectionable.

Interesting point.

I go with my own aesthetic sense. I'm meant to a musician, right? When I improvise I am a composer. I am meant to play what I find beautiful. This may change over time. In fact, I rather hope it does.

[christianm77]

IMO, unless you are blessed with the fast ears, natural talent and fingers of a Wes Montgomery or Stan Getz then you need all the theory help you can get. That includes knowing chord scales, voice leading, triad pairs, 3 tonic, target approaches etc etc.
CST is quite useful when approaching 60's tunes like Dolphin Dance, Juju, Serenity.

I actually disagree. I think there are better ways you could use your time, if your aim is to play music like Wes or Getz....

In fact, I would argue you actually need a good ear to play using CST! Judging from what Reg says he already had his ears and musicianship together before he learned CST, for example. UK star Gwilym Simcock learned using CST (AFAIK), but he was already the star pupil at the specialist classical music school he went to (highest ever grades in Piano and French Horn at Grade 8.) All the first generation CST guys learned bop before CST.. I won't go on....

The way I would put it is this: unless you are blessed with the fast ears, natural talent and fingers of a Wes Montgomery or Stan Getz then you need to spend all the time you possibly can improving your ears, learning solos and developing the connection between your ears and your instrument.

In fact, while Wes and Stan may have been very talented players, much of what they had was the development of their skills through hard work. Nobody worked harder than Wes.

Bear in mind that Wes couldn't (it is said) read chord charts. Now imagine if every time you wanted to play a tune you had to learn the changes by ear from a recording or busk it as best as you could. It would take longer to get good enough to feel comfortable on a bandstand, but imagine the work out your ears would get, and how much more intuitive your playing would be. Eventually you would learn new songs much faster than the guys who had learned from charts and theory. You wouldn't worry about scales because you would be hearing them and playing them anyway.

Just a thought. I feel I've been doing things backwards my whole life.... We rely on shortcuts for sounding good (in some ways we have to to pay the bills if we are working players). But Wayne Krantz kind of said the same thing in a recent masterclass, so that makes me feel better!

After you have some of that... a bit of theory? Why not? Theory can go hand in hand with ear training, too.

[tallermanwithguitar.com]

I think it is largely a question of order...sort of.

Starting with chord tones only builds your ear and establishes the "strong notes". Plus melodic limitations will often inspire more rhythmic ones. Barry Harris would have students improvise on one tone, relying ONLY on rhythmic variety.

I think from there you begin adding other tones. You eventually get access to all 12 tones, but never really think in terms of CST.

[Jonah]

I suddenly came back to this issue for the other side... never advocated CTS... but recently i began to hear the relations... this is how things work for me usually

Now it seems to me the biggest problem with it is that it is not really well organized and explained as theory and also often treated as 'must-know' - as obligatory knwoledge for youngsters... they treat often as 'notes allowed to play through this chord' - it breaks integrity in thinking...
the word 'scale' is also associated with classical scale and early modes which is wrong here inmho but leads to tendence to treat these scales in teh same way

Scales here are not really scales... I would not call it even pool of notes...

Now I think that CTS could be a good method to organaze harmony in a different way.. in other words you use scales not because you want to know which not to aviod over this chor - (actually there are simpler ways to know it and it wont make you creative for sure)

- but chordscales are there to make new realtions between chords.. that is to arrange new points for tension/release...

i mean you deal with common tones - with interconnections of scales in this case - that brings you to the level of the form...

[Lazz]

I don't quite see CST as an essential requirement for making music. As so many others must have said earlier, our ears are the ultimate arbiter, not theory. The greatest have after all started out as ear-players in pursuit of melody. Theoretical framework is pursued or picked-up later along their journey, it seems to me, as need dictates.

For me personally, nonetheless, I have found CST also to be eye-opening.
It certainly seems there are certain professional circumstances when it proves handy.

It always impresses me the way players size-up a chord sequence at first-sight and blow a beautiful coherent solo on a tune they've never seen before. Not the standard changes they would have seen before in many other contexts maybe, but a more out-of-the-ordinary individualist non-functional harmony - maybe something like a Kenny Wheeler orchestration, for example. They are able to do it because they have the theoretical tools to decode and make sense of things on-the-fly. And they've been using these language tools for so long that it's automatic, thoughtless, like breathing, and always first and foremost sounds easy natural and great. An amazing skill.

Becoming fluent in CST must also be a huge asset, I imagine, for arranging and orchestrating.
I know how, in even my own limited and tentative explorations in organising notes for a bunch of different instruments, it has given me a bigger vocabulary to work and play with. So I can only really imagine how useful it might be for someone who actually knows what they're doing - but I imagine it's a lot.

[Jonah]

I don't quite see CST as an essential requirement for making music. As so many others must have said earlier, our ears are the ultimate arbiter, not theory. The greatest have after all started out as ear-players in pursuit of melody. Theoretical framework is pursued or picked-up later along their journey, it seems to me, as need dictates.

I absolutely agree with you... actually for me the process of incorporating any method or theory is complex and long.. and goes through my hearing... it grows into my hearing.. and not methidically - I just play something, keep thinking about some things, keep listnening and one day I come across the tool again and the notions that did not mean much to me suddenly look very practical and lively..

Even more ... I believe there's nothing you can do if you primarily do not hear something inside... I mean it can be on the level of sences - some kind of pre-hearing... if you have it you will adopt tools to express it and you'll be on your way always.. if not - no tools will make it expressive, meaningful and personal

[christianm77]

I don't quite see CST as an essential requirement for making music. As so many others must have said earlier, our ears are the ultimate arbiter, not theory. The greatest have after all started out as ear-players in pursuit of melody. Theoretical framework is pursued or picked-up later along their journey, it seems to me, as need dictates.

For me personally, nonetheless, I have found CST also to be eye-opening.
It certainly seems there are certain professional circumstances when it proves handy.

It always impresses me the way players size-up a chord sequence at first-sight and blow a beautiful coherent solo on a tune they've never seen before. Not the standard changes they would have seen before in many other contexts maybe, but a more out-of-the-ordinary individualist non-functional harmony - maybe something like a Kenny Wheeler orchestration, for example. They are able to do it because they have the theoretical tools to decode and make sense of things on-the-fly. And they've been using these language tools for so long that it's automatic, thoughtless, like breathing, and always first and foremost sounds easy natural and great. An amazing skill.

Becoming fluent in CST must also be a huge asset, I imagine, for arranging and orchestrating.
I know how, in even my own limited and tentative explorations in organising notes for a bunch of different instruments, it has given me a bigger vocabulary to work and play with. So I can only really imagine how useful it might be for someone who actually knows what they're doing - but I imagine it's a lot.

Haha, I like your metaphor! And yes, I very much agree...

If your aim is to be versatile I think you need a lot of tools at your disposal. Chord/scale stuff works great fer yer Kenny Wheeler stuff, but if you bust that stuff out on a swing gig you'll sound wrong (probably without realising it). If you are hanging with some serious bop cats and you play a bunch of CST stuff, that won't work either.

On the other hand, bebop licks sound a bit naff over non-functional harmony. So, there's no panaceas. You can use your judgement and your ears, of course, those are your greatest asset. Theoretical knowledge can be helpful too, coupled with your lugs...

So in practice, you need to be context sensitive. What you need to do is play music, lots of it, and acquire and develop the tools you need to play it.

In terms of mastering CST - in any case, the knowledge to apply x scale over chord y is relatively straightforward. What is harder is developing a true mastery of the scales - really learning the major scale (and modes) as Pat Metheny says, can take years...

On the other hand, I know guys who can only play CST, others who only know bebop and so on. I can see value in this too, as it's a great thing to master a particular thing.

[christianm77]

I absolutely agree with you... actually for me the process of incorporating any method or theory is complex and long.. and goes through my hearing... it grows into my hearing.. and not methidically - I just play something, keep thinking about some things, keep listnening and one day I come across the tool again and the notions that did not mean much to me suddenly look very practical and lively..

Even more ... I believe there's nothing you can do if you primarily do not hear something inside... I mean it can be on the level of sences - some kind of pre-hearing... if you have it you will adopt tools to express it and you'll be on your way always.. if not - no tools will make it expressive, meaningful and personal

Another way of framing it (I hope I'm not presumptuous in thinking Irez87 would agree) is that 'there's nothing you can't do if you hear something inside.'

[destinytot]

Another way of framing it (I hope I'm not presumptuous in thinking Irez87 would agree) is that 'there's nothing you can't do if you hear something inside.'

My two cents re. hearing is that the ideal is interactive (rather independent) listening, i.e. when you're monitoring - and responding to - everything (beyond just what comes from within yourself). A tall order, perhaps.