-
Oh where to start. You can start by reading this article:
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Berklee Today | Berklee College of Music
But in general chord scale theory is like I said in the main post mainly a pedagogical tool. Retrofitted to Bebop even. But those guys really didn't think 7th mode of melodic minor.
-
06-25-2018 09:59 PM
-
Ok, but that's NOT what that article is laying out at all. It's basically advocating ear training and development of chord tone soloing. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
I think we read it differently then. He mentions chord scale to be novice friendly but lacking facility for development of good jazz ears in a few places. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Many sources I have seen fairly early on get into CST. Another one I remember is Coursera jazz improvisation course thought by Gary Burton. Completely neglects chord tones and directly jumps to modes and CST:
Jazz Improvisation | Coursera
It's just a quick way to get people started with improvisation.
-
On the coursera page click "see all" in section 2, "The Improviser's Vocabulary". You'll see the exact approach the article advises AGAINST. Both Berklee teachers, go figure.
Last edited by Tal_175; 06-25-2018 at 10:47 PM.
-
I'll tell you one of the things that has helped kill jazz is the idea that there is some type of formally codified jazz theory that can be analyzed, learned/absorbed and put into practice.
CST is a valuable concept, but is limited to mostly harmonic application, the lesser of importance to rhythmic values in jazz.
To wrap it up, one of the things being lost is the supreme importance of of an individual personal codex for applying your jazz voice. Learn all you can, focus on what speaks to you, and find your OWN unique logic in applying it. The fantasy is that there is some universal method that can be attained after years of searching, only to find out that the masters all made up their own personal codex, not some unified one.
Tell me what is the same about Jim Hall, Joe Henderson, Pat Martino, Wayne Shorter, Monk, Mile, Mingus, Trane, and on and on? They took what they could learn and focused on a process that worked totally for them, not some non-existent one size fits all concept.
CST is just a part of the personal puzzle we're sorting out for ourselves, the sooner the better. Make it up something for yourself that works, it's yours, and you sound like you...
-
Hey Gumbo that's what I said! But .... better.
-
Is this a response to OP? It's ok if you felt like venting about CST in general, just wondering if it's response to any specific post. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Originally Posted by Tal_175
First of all, this idea that it's JUST for beginners, training wheels, JUST a pedagogical tool, a shortcut etc...goes against the stated personal experience of multiple advanced players on this forum. Many have shared that it's a concept that they use and even that it's something that they used LATER, at a more advanced level, - AFTER they could play pretty competently. Originally Posted by Tal_175
So, I don't understand how you can say that it's JUST the things you say.
Second, I feel like there are some logical flaws in attempting to draw broader "meaning" from very specific facts: like learning/teaching basic scales as a starting point in learning some beginning concepts in jazz is "CST".
There are others,but I think it's important to try to see it holistically and not get bogged down too much.
CST isn't necessarily a complete "method " for learning to play , anymore than CAGED or EGBDF are "methods".
CST isn't completely antithetical to chord tone soloing. I feel like that one keeps getting implied as well.
"More players know simple scales in the beginning then arpeggios etc.. so it's easier for them to play that." This a basic statement of FACT. However, it isn't really a judgment on scales being BETTER than arpeggios, or that scales are somehow "the answer", and it isn't really making a judgmentof value on the order in which things should be learned etc.
You're not the first to draw a stark "CST versus other" line in the sand. I just think a lot of this discussion is seeing "versus" where it doesn't really exist. There's enough contention to be had already in the specific, factual details in my opinion.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
I'm just pointing out that CST one of the most common teaching methods for beginners out there. Not just the guitar world. It's chapter 3 in Levine's book. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I think many members here actually stated that they started with CST but didn't get too far before they moved on the other approaches. I think everybody eventually moves on from necessary introductory oversimplifications of any approach as they progress.
I agree however that calling CST just a training wheel is a strong statement.Last edited by Tal_175; 06-26-2018 at 07:54 AM.
-
that's pretty condescending. I'm sorry, but I think your inclination to jump to wild false conclusions IS the problem . Originally Posted by Tal_175
I have problems with your basic premises . I'm not going to debate something which I fundamentally disagree with as a starting point. I've tried to be as clear as plain as I possibly can be.
Good luck with your thread.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
I understand CST to be an approach to analyzing relationships between melody and harmony. I don't know what you mean by "teaching method", but assuming you mean a comprehensive method for teaching improvisation, I don't think that's what it is. Rather, it's used in conjunction with functional harmony and concepts of dissonance/consonance idiomatic to jazz to identify supersets of pitches associated with (typically, 4-voice) chords. It helps explain what pitches could work melodically with a chord progression and why, and it's used to identify and explain chord subs, but it's not in itself telling a student what to play. In my (granted, limited) exposure, it's one element in a broader method of training musicians that includes functional harmony, rhythm, concepts of taste, basic musicianship, etc. If it's the only element a teacher uses, that's probably not a very good teacher. Originally Posted by Tal_175
I'm surprised to see you describe it as something presented to beginners. My idea of a jazz beginner is someone who maybe has some basic competence on the instrument and is beginning to improvise. A person in that situation, from what I've seen, usually starts with chord tones and maybe blues/blue notes, ear training, and learning others' solos, and isn't introduced to more complicated theory ideas until later. I'm thinking along the lines of kids in a middle-school or high school big band, some of whom can kind of improvise, or maybe Bill Clinton on Aresenio (ducks). If we're talking about something like the Berklee books, that material is designed for people who have passed auditions to college-level music programs. To me, those would be quite advanced players, not beginners.
To your point about CST being an oversimplification, I don't really see it that way. I find the vocabulary cumbersome and a pretty complicated way of thinking about how to pull chromaticism into one's playing. But I may not be as good at abstraction as some people. However, I do find some of the rules of thumb that have emerged from it (e.g. altered scale = MM a half step up from a Dom7 as a way of thinking about altered scales and subs for dom7 chords) helpful.
To your broader point about how poorly some people present this material, I fully agree. Googling "chord scale theory" yields an enormous amount of gibberish. But there's also stuff that's quite well done, and I would put the Berklee Book of Harmony in that category. There were also a few people RMMGJ who posted really informative stuff rooted in CST. And I think that's a key takeaway. There are lot of people writing about or debating CST who haven't actually learned it, and there are a lot of people who maybe have learned it, but can't write. Take any reasonably sophisticated idea and I think you get similar results, but that's not necessarily saying anything about the idea itself.
John
-
I encountered CST as a beginner. Confused the hell out of me. Originally Posted by John A.
I think the idea that jazz harmony has to be based on four note chords at least is a real problem in some ways. It can be based on four or more notes, but it is often based on three. You are basically setting year zero of your understanding of jazz harmony as 1959.
Also setting up a misleading equivalency between the different functions of a scale and how the chords get extended.
I always think the idea that jazz harmony is necessarily different and special from other types of harmony is partly to create a mystique about these things. In fact 'jazz' harmony was a staple of popular music before the rock era.
I agree. Really a student should be an able bop player before looking into CST.I'm surprised to see you describe it as something presented to beginners. My idea of a jazz beginner is someone who maybe has some basic competence on the instrument and is beginning to improvise. A person in that situation, from what I've seen, usually starts with chord tones and maybe blues/blue notes, ear training, and learning others' solos, and isn't introduced to more complicated theory ideas until later. I'm thinking along the lines of kids in a middle-school or high school big band, some of whom can kind of improvise, or maybe Bill Clinton on Aresenio (ducks). If we're talking about something like the Berklee books, that material is designed for people who have passed auditions to college-level music programs. To me, those would be quite advanced players, not beginners.
To your point about CST being an oversimplification, I don't really see it that way. I find the vocabulary cumbersome and a pretty complicated way of thinking about how to pull chromaticism into one's playing. But I may not be as good at abstraction as some people. However, I do find some of the rules of thumb that have emerged from it (e.g. altered scale = MM a half step up from a Dom7 as a way of thinking about altered scales and subs for dom7 chords) helpful.
To your broader point about how poorly some people present this material, I fully agree. Googling "chord scale theory" yields an enormous amount of gibberish. But there's also stuff that's quite well done, and I would put the Berklee Book of Harmony in that category. There were also a few people RMMGJ who posted really informative stuff rooted in CST. And I think that's a key takeaway. There are lot of people writing about or debating CST who haven't actually learned it, and there are a lot of people who maybe have learned it, but can't write. Take any reasonably sophisticated idea and I think you get similar results, but that's not necessarily saying anything about the idea itself.
John
I think CST is self-perpetuating. Jazz musicians have been learning it for 50 years.
-
Berklee book of harmony is my favorite jazz theory book. Very thorough and concise, very well chosen topics in harmony. They do cover some CST but that's not what most of the content of the book is about I think. Originally Posted by John A.
However unfortunately they do do the Dmin7/Dorian, Emin7/Phrygian ... Chord scale equivalence when they cover major scale harmony.
I totally agree that one should start with chord tones and embellishments and cover bop language first. That certainly what I'm doing.
Now may be there are a lot of advanced players who started with chord tones and embellishments and later on reached the conclusion that they should: over ii, play Dorian, over iii play Phrygian etc.
Are there any advanced players here that think Phrygian over iii chord of major who is reading this? I'd really like to know.Last edited by Tal_175; 06-26-2018 at 12:08 PM.
-
1960's, somewhere in Boston, there is man sitting on a bar stool, thinking:
Hmm Dmin7. I see people play chord tones, extensions. In between notes come from the key as passing notes. How do I teach this.
Oh I have an idea, why don't I introduce a new scale name starting from each note of the major scale and describe these choice of notes with these scales. Brilliant. Ok how should I name them. It should be esoteric. Better yet why don't I borrow these scale names from a completely different concept in theory, but it should be superficially similar, not immediately obvious that it's same names but different meanings. Of course. I am genius.
Yes there is a lot of confusion out there about CST which shouldn't surprise anyone.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Lucky you. I started taking jazz lessons in college (non music student in a general university) after I had been playing semi-professionally (non jazz) for a while and trying to figure out jazz. I had a some classical lessons as a kid. My jazz teacher introduced some CST ideas to me after chord tone-based improv and some functional harmony, but I didn't stick with lessons. Most of what I know of CST came through self-study and osmosis of hanging out with better musicians.
Well ... charts are typically written with four note chords, and I think that started WAY before 1959, but I'm no music historian. In any event, most chord instrumentalists I know were taught to comp two or three note chords. So I don't know where you get the idea that 4-note chords are a recent accretion taught to the exclusion of all else. However, you and I learned in different places, different times, and fashions (me: US, 50s, learned music mostly from peers and betters informally rather than in school; you, UK, 30s(?), more formally schooled, I gather). Originally Posted by christianm77
I don't follow what you mean by that. Example? Originally Posted by christianm77
I imagine a lot of people who teach "jazz harmony" agree with that. Harmony is harmony, but jazz has distinct aesthetics, emphases and practical applications of harmony that justify some differentiation. In jazz, instrumentalists are also composers and need harmony in their practical toolkit in a way that classical instrumentalists typically don't (or at least often say they don't when complaining about having to take theory classes). But, yes, jazz harmony to a large extent comes from romantic, impressionist, and early 20th century composers and the GASB songwriters who drew on this music. Bach, too. I'm still trying to figure out how he listened to all that Ravel. Originally Posted by christianm77
Some have; it's not the only approach to out there. But just by dint of it being central to the curricula of the handful of schools that pretty much invented post-secondary jazz education, it has a big footprint. Originally Posted by christianm77
Anyway, I'm trying not to fall into the trap of being one of those guys who talks gibberish on the internet about CST without knowing anything about CST, so I should probably stop.
John
-
It's a difficult one to be sure on because professional musicians did not learn tunes from real books in 1959. There was the Tunedex (?) system. No one took fake books seriously before the Real Book because they were all awful. Originally Posted by John A.
My understanding is that chord symbol notation was pretty basic for lead sheets and was perhaps more complicated in Big Band charts. Also notating extensions became popular perhaps to avoid clashes with the melody. I don't really know.
Anyway, I'm basing my understanding on what I hear jazz musicians playing. Often in the 50s, what they play is 6th chords or plain majors or minors depending on the musician and context. Certainly the concept of m7 as a I chord was pretty unusual before Kind of Blue.
Barry Harris bases his theory in 6th chords. Major 7ths and so on seem to become more common in the late 50s/early 60s.
BUT - that's talking about voicings. Louis was playing major 7ths on I major chords in the 20s. You are not going to hear that shit in the left hand of the piano or in the banjo. That's because left/hand was seperate for piano players right up until the 60s. They didn't always even agree the alterations between the two hands, and certainly the likes of Bud Powell were playing very simple LH voicings. Not 1 3 7 necessarily. Often 1 3 6 or just tenths on major and minor chords. Like a stride guy.
But modern theory combines melodic improvisation and the study of voicings. That's kind of a post 1950s thing, Bill Evans is the archetype of that, Ahmad Jamal an early pioneer along with Gil Evans orchestrations. It's not super neat, but it's a general evolution towards a more integrated theory of chords and melody.
I'm always happy for people to point out stuff in the actual records. It's complicated. People play all kinds of stuff.
Well, IVmaj7 is more common than I. Dominant chords have always been extended and altered. A bebop improviser will improvise more on the dominants than the major... we might have resolutions to 9 and 13, but you won't get #11 on major, except on ending chords maybe. #11 very common on dominant chords which are not V, and so on...I don't follow what you mean by that. Example?
TBH there is so much to talk about here I barely know where to start. I feel anything I write will turn into a tract. Basically, listen to what musicians actually play, study scores and read up... Ethan Iverson's articles are great for instance.
Jazz harmony is not GASB standards harmony. Jazz harmony is what gets done to standards.I imagine a lot of people who teach "jazz harmony" agree with that. Harmony is harmony, but jazz has distinct aesthetics, emphases and practical applications of harmony that justify some differentiation. In jazz, instrumentalists are also composers and need harmony in their practical toolkit in a way that classical instrumentalists typically don't (or at least often say they don't when complaining about having to take theory classes). But, yes, jazz harmony to a large extent comes from romantic, impressionist, and early 20th century composers and the GASB songwriters who drew on this music. Bach, too. I'm still trying to figure out how he listened to all that Ravel.
It's really flipping complicated. Mainstream jazz education's basic handling of chords is like the most simplified, basic version of how to build chords that sound good on a generic modern gig. I've checked out as much history as I can and TBH, sometimes I find my thoughts hard to articulate. But getting more familiar with the sounds.Some have; it's not the only approach to out there. But just by dint of it being central to the curricula of the handful of schools that pretty much invented post-secondary jazz education, it has a big footprint.
Anyway, I'm trying not to fall into the trap of being one of those guys who talks gibberish on the internet about CST without knowing anything about CST, so I should probably stop.
John
-
(Snip all the historical stuff I can't comment on) FWIW, if you google tune-dex images, you see some 4 note symbols mostly dom7's, but some major 7's and 6's. Re, fakebooks, I remember seeing pre-Realbook fakebooks, but I'm not sure if I ever saw the Fakebook 1, 2 , etc., that some sources refer to. I got my Realbook very early in my jazz journey ca. 1982 from a used book/record store in NY that sold them openly for while. I can remember some people had binders of lead sheets they put together themselves from I don't know what sources Originally Posted by christianm77
[QUOTE=christianm77;880042] Jazz harmony is not GASB standards harmony. Jazz harmony is what gets done to standards.[quote]
When I say "GASB harmony" I'm including orchestration (big bands, shows, concert versions of Gershwin, records with full orchestration, etc.), which had a big influence on what jazz guys who learned tunes from those sources did.
I find I can fail to articulate my thoughts without having to go through the effort of studying a bunch of stuff, so for the sake of efficiency ... Originally Posted by christianm77
John
-
Heh!
-
All the tunedex stuff for standards I can see seems to be just basic chord symbols, admittedly didn’t scrutinise that deeply. Have you some specific examples?
-
I had the tunedex fakebook in the mid 60's. The people I knew referred to it as "the fake book", apparently because it was the only one anybody had seen.
In the 70's a bunch of big compendiums of lead sheets came out with titles like "Hits of the 70s".
A friend had the first Real Book in the early 80s and I copied it. I still use that copy.
The RB gets a lot of criticism, but I don't think I'd have progressed as quickly without it. It really helped to have a common reference as an intermediate player. No struggling with who knew which version of what tune. You could get together and play. I can see the argument that it allowed players to avoid some needed work, but TBH, I'm not sure I'd have done that work. The RB made that whole world more accessible to a less gifted player, fwiw.
-
The history of lead sheets is something I’m always up for finding out more about.
Such a basic part of our experience as jazz musicians these days, and yet like many things the history and development of the music can be a bit slippery to track down.
-
I assume you've checked out Barry Kernfeld? Originally Posted by christianm77
John
-
Filmic Light - Snow White Archive: 1945 Tune-Dex Cards Originally Posted by christianm77
I see (dom)7's, 9's, and min7's here. Also a "+" or two. No M7 or 6's, but I think I've seen some somewhere.
John
-
That is exactly what I'd expect. Originally Posted by John A.
For maj7 I'd expect:
Maj7 - Maj6 (Tea for Two'ing as I call it, here the Maj7 is considered a dissonance)
Or Maj7 resolve up to straight Maj...
IVMaj7 (as this chord is common in common practice music including Baroque...)
And I predict even in tunes where you have a 7th in the melody (After You've Gone has E on F major and B on C major in C major), they probably won't include the maj7 as part of the chord symbol, contrary to modern practice, and if they did, they'd be more likely to include on the F chord.
But, that might be BS, and I'd be interested to be proven wrong.Last edited by christianm77; 06-26-2018 at 02:51 PM.
-
Yes. Sounds silly, because it IS - the way you're laying it out . That's not the point. The truth is that jazz musicians have been playing things OTHER THAN diatonic over diatonic chords for a long time. Playing Dorian over minor VI chord, instead of diatonic for example, isn't some new Berklee thing. Originally Posted by Tal_175
You can call that sound "playing minor with a natural 6" , you can call it "playing C# on your E minor chord", you can hum it or play t, ....or you can simply call it Dorian. In the end, it doesn't really matter at all, except if you want to communicate easily with other people. At that point, it's helpful to at least understand the conventions which are used by actual musicians in describing this stuff.
Or you can obsess over creating some fictionalized Berklee mythology around the stuff which is inherently simple. No-one ever sat around worrying about calling a ii-V "Dorian mixo". Those are just introductory terminologies for when you later learn to substitute other colors. You can use Dorian in other contexts, and you can also sub a lot of other sounds in place of mixolydian , but the EASIEST starting point for at least developing that terminology, is to start with basic diatonic .
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
2 new & excellent Jazz Comping Truefire...
Yesterday, 10:22 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions