On the fence with Modes, not sure I am getting it.

[docdosco]

I always get the feeling when it comes to CST discussions , that there's this basic notion of "what scale can I play over this chord?" being the fundamental idea of it. The whole notion is messed up whether you're pro or con.

First, if you think it's really that simple in playing jazz , you're misguided. But at the same time, if you're on the other side, you can't use that silly question ITSELF to explain away why CST "doesn't work". The fact that you still need to understand things like basic language, melodic devices or phrasing in the style doesn't change the other very real fact....that this way of organizing pitches is very helpful to some players who otherwise have all those things together and understand how to use that knowledge.

Sure, there are plenty of great players who claim to know nothing about theory, at least in terms of what things are called, or modes/scales etc., but there are also plenty of other great players who are conversant about the way they organize chromatic/outside pitches and how they outline chords in harmony and melody, even when playing very functional, non-modal, Western music.

I agree that it's not the place START, but these kind of conversations often take on a tone of superstition around the "mysticism" of music. "It worked for Wes" is cool if it works for YOU. It's probably also helpful if you have Wes's ears, fingers, talent and time on the instrument.

I would point to a lot of reg's videos as examples of applying CST to functional playing in a pretty non-modal sounding way. It's more of an organizing structure for approaching chromatics. Typically doesn't sound super outside in most of what he has shared here. He keeps most of it pretty straightforward , at least in terms of clearly outlining the basic harmony.

But it's not simply one scale over one chord either. Again, you have to have some basic phrasing, harmonic/melodic rhythm concepts together as well.

I agree that labels tend to confuse, which you seem to indicate in your post. CST can work just as well as other approaches can work. One should understand (as you do, no doubt) that any system is an attempt to explain processes that were likely formulated on the fly as this jazz idiom was born and began evolving, over the course of years, decades ago.

Analyzing music in terms of music theory, is really an autopsy, a procedure preformed post mortem to chronicle what had occurred when the music was still alive. It is model that can describe the body, and there are different viewing angles and various nomenclature, different methodology, with their various perspectives...... but theory (the service manual for jazz???) isn't creative, it can't describe the living, breathing aspects of music, it doesn't compose, it decomposes.

Once jazz became really established as an academic discipline and most of the old junkies that lived the life died off, I think that young players now get a somewhat sterilized, sanitized overview. No? Maybe?

Anyway, theory has it's place, and for some, the study of theory can make them a better player. It can also sow the seeds of confusion and box players into a much narrower 'living space'

[jordanklemons]

I agree that labels tend to confuse, which you seem to indicate in your post. CST can work just as well as other approaches can work. One should understand (as you do, no doubt) that any system is an attempt to explain processes that were likely formulated on the fly as this jazz idiom was born and began evolving, over the course of years, decades ago.

Analyzing music in terms of music theory, is really an autopsy, a procedure preformed post mortem to chronicle what had occurred when the music was still alive. It is model that can describe the body, and there are different viewing angles and various nomenclature, different methodology, with their various perspectives...... but theory (the service manual for jazz???) isn't creative, it can't describe the living, breathing aspects of music, it doesn't compose, it decomposes.

Once jazz became really established as an academic discipline and most of the old junkies that lived the life died off, I think that young players now get a somewhat sterilized, sanitized overview. No? Maybe?

Anyway, theory has it's place, and for some, the study of theory can make them a better player. It can also sow the seeds of confusion and box players into a much narrower 'living space'

I think it's very easy to romanticize and generalize the history and the current situation. The notion that all the old guys weren't schooled and did it a certain way, and that modern day education isn't as good, I find to be both romanticized and generalized. Sure, Miles dropped out of Juilliard. But he also FIRST attended Juilliard. Bill Evans spent decades drenched in studying and learning classical music. Many of the guys we know and love were highly educated in the craft. And today, there are plenty of people who have gone through the academic world, but also people who haven't. And likewise... there are still people around and alive that perform and teach... and all from their own unique perspective. If I learned anything from my masters program and getting to study with many old school and modern-day legends, it's that they ALL have their own perspective on the process of learning. It's not this way or that, the old school or the modern... it's every man for himself in a lot of ways. They each found what worked for them.

A concept I think and talk about a lot is DEscriptive vs PREscriptive. Is theory or an idea being used to describe what's already there? Or is it a prescription for how to get there? Is telling someone to burp, unlatch their belt, relax back into their chair, and let out a sigh of relief describing the feeling of being well fed and full? Or is a prescription for how to get there? Is telling a hungry person living on the streets to perform these actions going to actually help them?

I've explored a lot of different approaches - mainly on my own or with the guidance of a private teacher... rarely finding much guidance from books. The approach I've found to be most helpful in describing AND prescribing has been the triadic approach. It's what has worked better than any other for myself as an explorer of sound in its ability to describe (understand) what is happening in a tune, an improvised solo, an arrangement, etc... but it also offers very clear cut prescriptions for how to approach new sounds. I've watched students who were relatively new to guitar and improvisation gain the ability to improvise guitar solos that were truly beautiful enough to be on recordings within a matter of weeks. A speed with which I was never able to yield for myself or my students when teaching scales and positions and THEN trying to figure out how to use them. I literally used to tell students (I vividly remember these conversations), after weeks if not months of making them drill scale positions and variations within them, that now it's time to just experiment and explore the scale A LOT until they figure out a way to make something musical from them. It's certainly possible to find that stuff. There's absolutely nothing wrong with learning all the theory, memorizing scale positions, understand modes, fighting for massive amounts of muscle memory, and THEN trying to make music with all of it. But for me as a student of music and in my teaching... I just start with the musical stuff first. Here are the "best" sounding and most stable notes... let's improvise melodies with them. Awesome... once that sounds totally legit, let's add a note or two to it. It can eventually build up into scales and modes if we want it to. But it gives our ears a chance to actually learn what's going on inside all of it. It's both describing why certain melodies and tunes and solos sound so good, and it's prescribing a method.

Often times I find that scales and modes are good for describing why something sounds good, or analyzing what's happening inside it... but aren't as good when it comes to offering a prescribed process for being able to create it ourselves. For instance, many of us would agree that it takes a lot of intention and understanding to pull of the natural 4 over a major 7 chord. Some might even go so far as to say it should be avoided. Yet, if you learn the C major scale, it can seem like those 7 notes are a democracy. That when you see a CMaj7 chord, you can choose from them freely. I find it's not a democracy. The 12 notes of our chromatic system exist in a hierarchy. The 4th caries a different level of weight and value against a maj7 chord than the 7th does. Learning a scale without that knowledge of hierarchy (either intellectually or at least within the ear) is like pretending to have explored the world of trees simply because we know the word 'tree'. Have you tasted all of the different fruits produced by all types of trees? Do you know which trees produce edible maple syrup? Which trees tend to attract poison ivy and should be avoided? Are best for fire wood? Are best for building tree houses in? Learning the word 'tree' and that it has a trunk, branches, and leaves is far different from having truly explored the world of trees and all they have to offer.

Whether we approach notes from the perspective of scales, modes, triads, transcriptions, tunes, etc... nothing replaces us spending time exploring. I find that the simpler the tool and approach with which we explore, the more easily it is to discover and apply.

[ragman1]

I find that the simpler the tool and approach with which we explore, the more easily it is to discover and apply.

Correct :-)

[rpjazzguitar]

My view of chord/scale material isn't that there's anything wrong with it. Rather, there's enough right with it that it's very attractive.

So, it's possible to become over-involved with it to the point of neglecting other aspects of play. Well, at least I see myself in that.

If I could start all over from the beginning, I'd want a teacher assigning solfege and transcription and not paying any attention to the guitar until my ear was well trained. With the ability to hear harmony, rhythm and swing on simple lines -- all in place, CST would be a more rewarding experience.

[christianm77]

My view of chord/scale material isn't that there's anything wrong with it. Rather, there's enough right with it that it's very attractive.

So, it's possible to become over-involved with it to the point of neglecting other aspects of play. Well, at least I see myself in that.

If I could start all over from the beginning, I'd want a teacher assigning solfege and transcription and not paying any attention to the guitar until my ear was well trained. With the ability to hear harmony, rhythm and swing on simple lines -- all in place, CST would be a more rewarding experience.

Sadly, the value of this approach is not always obvious to the student at the time. In retrospect it seems like a great idea. I doubt I would have had the patience for it as a teenager.