Modes and chord-scales revisited

[Tal_175]

Who said "first"? who assigned priority and president of the way that you are implying here?

Did you review the course content?
I am posting it here directly from the coursera page, please read it first. Hope you'll find the answer to your questions . Please read it completely.
Do you think the course's content well chosen? That's very possible. You like the approach. Then state it. That's your opinion. You seem to have a desire to attack any attempt at questioning this particular approach.
Also I think you misunderstood my point about Maj7's being default too. I didn't say one should just play Maj7 if the chart calls it. I didn't imply that Maj 7's are unsubstitutable. What I pointed out was Maj 7ths coming from almost virtual no existence to becoming the very common choice (if not the most common) for tonic major. Use your ears not the chart only.

[Tal_175]

Here is the course content as promised, please read completely before making assumptions about what the course is about.

Learn the basic concepts of improvisation from Gary Burton, one of the most renowned improvisers in the jazz world, including the mental, melodic, and harmonic processes that contribute to the instinctive skills that an improviser puts to use when taking a solo. While many people are fans of jazz and understand that musicians are often “making up” the notes they are playing during a performance, most people—often including musicians, themselves, who are beginning to learn improvising—aren’t clear about what exact processes take place to enable this to happen. The purpose of this course is to introduce the basic concepts of modern improvisation and how to go about mastering the different musical and mental skills involved. Course author Gary Burton codifies a sought-after approach to improvisation that has been at the core of Berklee College of Music's curriculum for decades. Students who complete this course will know what to practice and how to practice the various aspects of improvising, in addition to understanding how the improviser spontaneously communicates to the listeners through their musical creations.

[Tal_175]

Pay particular attention to:
Course author Gary Burton codifies a sought-after approach to improvisation that has been at the core of Berklee College of Music's curriculum for decades. Students who complete this course will know what to practice and how to practice the various aspects of improvising, in addition to understanding how the improviser spontaneously communicates to the listeners through their musical creations.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Here is the course content as promised, please read completely before making assumptions about what the course is about.

Learn the basic concepts of improvisation from Gary Burton, one of the most renowned improvisers in the jazz world, including the mental, melodic, and harmonic processes that contribute to the instinctive skills that an improviser puts to use when taking a solo. While many people are fans of jazz and understand that musicians are often “making up” the notes they are playing during a performance, most people—often including musicians, themselves, who are beginning to learn improvising—aren’t clear about what exact processes take place to enable this to happen. The purpose of this course is to introduce the basic concepts of modern improvisation and how to go about mastering the different musical and mental skills involved. Course author Gary Burton codifies a sought-after approach to improvisation that has been at the core of Berklee College of Music's curriculum for decades. Students who complete this course will know what to practice and how to practice the various aspects of improvising, in addition to understanding how the improviser spontaneously communicates to the listeners through their musical creations.

Ok?? Thanks for posting I guess???

I don't see anything in this about learning scales INSTEAD of transcribing , nor do I see an answer to ANY of the questions I asked. You can refuse to answer them. That's fine, I guess.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, like you say, but there's a difference between doing that and in implying that multiple things were said by OTHER people and continuing to reference those "other people" multiple times in a thread, WITHOUT actually ever siding where "other people" ever said those things. That's baseless and BS.

It's silly to speak for other people that way.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Ok. Thanks for posting???

I don't see anything in this about learning scales INSTEAD of transcribing , nor do I see an answer to ANY of the questions I asked. You can refuse to answer them. That's fine, I guess.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, like you say, but there's a difference between doing that and in implying that multiple things were said by OTHER people and continuing to reference those "other people" multiple times in a thread, WITHOUT actually ever siding where "other people" ever said those things. That's baseless and BS.

It's silly to speak for other people that way.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

I think you're still making straw man arguments. Do you really think that I said Garry Burton is against transcribing?
You said I was making over arching assumptions about his teaching. As I said this isn't about Garry Burton, but a particular teaching philosophy seems to be prominent at Berklee and that course seems to be representative of this approach. If you read the description, you'll see that that this is their claim. I don't know what else to say. They do say it's the "concepts of modern improvisation". I guess as opposed to traditional.
So I repeat, you either like this approach or you don't. That's not how Barry Harris teaches. But that's also one approach. There are many others use approaches different than "essential 10" scales (7 of which modes of major).

[matt.guitarteacher]

I think you're still making straw man arguments. Do you really think that I said Garry Burton is against transcribing?
You said I was making over arching assumptions about his teaching. As I said this isn't about Garry Burton, but a particular teaching philosophy prominent at Berklee and that course seems to be representative of this approach. If you read the description, you'll see that that this is their claim. I don't know what else to say. They do say it's the "concepts of modern improvisation". I guess as opposed to traditional.
So I repeat, you either like this approach or you don't. That's not how Barry Harris teaches. But that's also one approach. There are many others use different approaches that "essential 10" scales (7 of which modes of major).

Yes. I did see certain things in the description. However, there is NO assertion that any of the objectives of the course are, in fact, AGAINST anything else. That's your own personal conclusion. Even if you abstract this out to a "Berklee philosophy", it's a bit of a stretch to imply that Berklee philosophy is generally AGAINST transcription or that there is a prerequisite to ONLY do scales in the beginning etc.

You're obviously talking about things you don't know about and jumping to wild conclusions. I don't mean that in a mean way. But you're strumming things up as if they are a representation of a dichotomy of opposing forces or something, and so much of life just ISN'T about that.

And Barry Harris teaches a crap ton of scales. From the very BEGINNING. Like , sentence one, page 1. What's your point? There's no dichotomy there. There's no opposing force. Barry Harris isn't against transcription either. He's not making a statement that scales are somehow more important. That's not the point, and it isn't a conclusion to be jumped too.



Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

and Barry Harris teaches a crap ton of scales.

I am entirely convinced that you aren't sincerely debating a point at this point but reacting to some dynamic personally. So I am stating this for other readers,
Barry Harris does not teach a ton of scales. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they are talking about. One of the core points of his whole approach is based on reducing scale choices. To a large extend most chords are treated as part of Dominant scale. Dominants dominate he says. There are 2 scales. Dominant and major. Minor 7's are not Dorian. They are treated as 4-3 suspensions of Dominants in this approach.
And of course Barry Harris isn't against transcription (a random fact).
Of course scales are relevant to improvisation (This isn't about scales or no scales, a distinction some seem to be struggling with)

[Tal_175]

and now we're insulting Gary Burton. Wow...

OK, valid point. It does possibly come off that way unintentionally. Not what I meant to say. Poor choice of wording. Clarified it with additional edit.

[rpjazzguitar]

The best teachers I have encountered have a system they believe in and they teach that system.

I'm confident they understand that there are other ways to learn music, but they teach one way.

As a student, I understand that there are alternatives, but I'm happy to learn one way that works.

It makes it easier to know, if I just do these things, I can get there.

Also, the best teachers are clear in their teaching and demonstration, and make the material accessible.

[wolflen]

This thread seem circular and unresolved ... as an aside.. I have not seen Reg "flex" in my years on this forum..that says quite a bit...

Gary Burton is a master jazz musician I am sure in preparation to this Berklee course he had some idea of who would be taking the course and at what level of achievement the students may have...so he could have covered the course with a "something for everyone" approach..the 10 scales mentioned are essential on all levels of improve in jazz..and I am sure someone in the course would question other aspects..such as transcription..or Burton may have included it if he felt the need to do so and it was relevant to his teaching..the description of the course does not reflect the actual material covered and how it was presented..

The vids I have seen of Burton teaching are very clear and concise...but even without knowing his teaching methods..his playing says it..and the fact that Larry Coryell played and recorded with him for a year or so says a lot to me about both men

what I am saying in all this is teaching a group is far different than teaching in a one on one setting - In some convoluted way I thnk I'm reading that Burton is not teaching "correctly" or the material he is suggesting is not right..

Im sorry if I am off base with this ... but to me this thread is one of the strangest I have read on this forum in a long time

[Tal_175]

This thread seem circular and unresolved

- In some convoluted way I thnk I'm reading that Burton is not teaching "correctly" or the material he is suggesting is not right..

These two points are very related actually. It's circular because some people prefer speculating about what Burton might have been thinking when he prepared this course, what this might be saying about his teaching etc like you're doing, rather than to discuss the contents of the material and why they think it's a good approach. Give Burton more credit, if he is saying this course is designed based on the core principles of Berlee's teaching, believe him for once.

[Tal_175]

Also please drop this whole transcription thing. I didn't compare Burton's course with "transcription approach", it's in a different part of the post, responding to a different question.

[christianm77]

Misty is an interesting case. As a sign of how Imaj7s later became default, consider that the more recent cliche for the opening to that tune is to resolve from a Io7 (or D/Eb = Ebo with a borrowed maj7th) to Imaj7.

And yet I would think of that as a very old fashioned cadence.... But Errol doesn't seem to play it.

[christianm77]

And Barry Harris teaches a crap ton of scales. From the very BEGINNING. Like , sentence one, page 1. What's your point? There's no dichotomy there. There's no opposing force. Barry Harris isn't against transcription either. He's not making a statement that scales are somehow more important. That's not the point, and it isn't a conclusion to be jumped too.

That's not actually correct, for the early stages Barry mostly teaches the application of one scale - the dominant, for line construction. There are two main scales for harmony, maj-6 and min-6 dim.

(In terms of my own teaching, I try to play up the importance of mastering the application of limited materials rather than mastering lots of material right away.)

I'm not weighing in the Gary Burton teaching thing BTW. I have no experience of his teaching. I do know he said he's never done much, if any, transcription.

[christianm77]

Like I said above, the post is not about driving conclusions about Gary Burton as a teacher, rather a particular Berklee course deemed to be a good, representative content for introduction to jazz improvisation.

If that's what you meant, I would tend to agree with you. But I can only teach based on what I have personally have found useful.

I mean, being able to construct those 10 scales on the neck is a useful exercise in theory and fretboard mapping, but I would question its value as an exercise for improvisation itself. I probably wouldn't give it central importance. More like 5 min warm up start of the lesson...

Great - play 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, starting on 2nd finger 5th string
Now, lydian dom, raise 4 drop 7
Now, altered, everything flat except 1

Good fun exercise.

(BTW Barry style outlines 1-7-1 have done more for my fretboard mapping than any positional work, and he's not a guitar player lol.)

[Reg]

Take any tune....how many ways can it be performed.... if you can't play the tune with different approaches, or are not able to hear how someone else is approaching... you still need work to play jazz.

There is always the 10 step melody approach... somewhat the default if you can't really play or hear anything else.
staying with that simple line of improv...
-You can change tonal references for the basic melody line, so chord tones change... the again simple default approach of using relative and parallel harmonic applications... Vanilla... melody is over I VI II V.... so you change the chord references... to VI IV VII III
Cmaj7 A-7 D-7 G7 becomes A-7 Fma7 B-7b5 E-7... and if your really just using those chords as your reference....
I'll skip the details.... because who cares... and I don't really think anyone will get it...

- so you do need to be able... from analysis be able to understand... or at least make choices as to how the melody notes function and their level of importance.... there are pretty standard guideline for almost all tunes. There are also guidelines as to how to develop this approach.

- (you also have the same approach with the actual melody notes.... change the notes but keep the same functional shape)

- there are also pretty standard approaches for motif relationships and paths of development...
typical descending Cmaj7 arpeggio.... B.. G.. E.. C create two part counter improv... you can keep it simple... (vanilla diatonic), the 2nd line can be up or down a diatonic 3rd G E C B or D B G E.... they're mechanical relative diatonic relationships. You still need to create etc...
(and the extended versions of the simple approach for creating melodic development to can use subs and all the vanilla relattionship etc)
(if you get in to modal concepts and extended relationships from ... ) these simple approaches can actually begin to go somewhere.

Then if you begin to use harmonic relationships... get away from vanilla guidelines... along with being able to use the above simple melodic relationships and development.... even if yo only know the basic scales that Gary B mentioned.... your actually be able to play and hear some pretty typical jazz sounds.

And if you used and had you technical skills together with all the common practice jazz practice chords and scales organized from CST... you end up with unlimited amount of approaches with musical organization to play or even more important.... be able to hear when someone else is playing... and you can interact and support... you know actually play in a jazz style.

To watch a Burton vid and hear... these 10 scales are all you need.... pretty much explain why you don't get it.

[matt.guitarteacher]

That's not actually correct, for the early stages Barry mostly teaches the application of one scale - the dominant, for line construction. There are two main scales for harmony, maj-6 and min-6 dim.

(In terms of my own teaching, I try to play up the importance of mastering the application of limited materials rather than mastering lots of material right away.)

I'm not weighing in the Gary Burton teaching thing BTW. I have no experience of his teaching. I do know he said he's never done much, if any, transcription.

Only have the one DVD. But it's the scales from different scale degrees at the front I think, and dominant later.

Again though, that's kind of my POINT in the first place: you don't look at something on paper one time and make a pronouncement about teachers entire philosophy. I don't think you can take the fact that that DVD booklet has scales first thing on page 1 and then say that Barry Harris is a "scale guy",.... that he advocates "scales first" ,..... that he's opposed to transcription etc. etc. Even to talk about what he's doing as being just "scales" isn't really fair . (More about rhythm etc. in my mind). And we probably shouldn't be addressing anything that way without having REALLY studied it anyway, right? I mean, I haven't seen that anyone has actually been through the Gary Burton course .

I just feel like these larger philosophical LEAPS and labeling were taking place a great deal in the thread, and it bothers me.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Only have the one DVD. But it's the scales from different scale degrees at the front I think, and dominant later.

Nope.

,..... that he's opposed to transcription etc. etc. Even to talk about what he's doing as being just "scales" isn't really fair . (More about rhythm etc. in my mind). And we probably shouldn't be addressing anything that way without having REALLY studied it anyway, right? I mean, I haven't seen that anyone has actually been through the Gary Burton course .

I just feel like these larger philosophical LEAPS and labeling were taking place a great deal in the thread, and it bothers me.

I'm gonna try hard to make this my last response to you. I think you've been reading my posts with some preconceived idea about where I'm going with these but missing the mark completely. I'm sorry that you've been reading my posts in that light and working yourself up.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Nope.



I'm gonna try hard to make this my last response to you. I think you've been reading my posts with some preconceived idea about where I'm going with these but missing the mark completely. I'm sorry that you've been reading my posts in that light and working yourself up.

Multiple other posters. Not just me. It's probably just everyone else's deal though...

I asked you some pretty straightforward questions which you never answered. It's not group therapy or something . It's a forum. One person says something, another responds. Two-way conversation etc. Whatever.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[Reg]

I know and have had the privilege of performing with Gary Burton. AMAZING PERFORMER, anyway another story...when I auditioned at berklee... (they grade your performance skills and give you ratings to qualify you for different ensembles etc...) Gary Burton was on drums, James Williams was on piano... can't remember the bassist... I was a kid... I could play, and what got me into most of the top bands... I could sight read well. but talk about sink or swim, my heart rate was up... I ended up taking piano lessons with James and Burton dug my chops... so I got a few gigs.

Getting back to the CST discussion... Most Student musicians don't really have their skills together... by that I mean when someone is trying to teach you how to play jazz.... they need to start somewhere. Learning a small collection of scales doesn't mean just being able play them. It involves all the other shit also... all the chords, arpeggios, how licks and embellishments imply chords and scales... etc....

My point if you don't get what's implied or even worse... as tal175 did... come to uninformed conclusions... about a teaching approach ... that your not really qualified to draw.... besides choosing to do so because you believe you can see the purpose etc... I mean all I can really do is laugh... and hope you can really play... because your not going to get many call backs for gigs from your musical verbal skills.

I understand CST... it's not that difficult.... becoming comfortable and understanding all the relationships which are available and having the skills to apply in real time...takes awhile.

[rpjazzguitar]

When I watched the Burton video, I assumed that he brought up the 10 scale issue because he figured that everybody in the audience had heard or read about jazz using a near infinite number of scales -- and he wanted to bring it down to earth to make it less intimidating and more accessible.

An aside: I've been working through Melodic Shapes For the Modern Improviser. The lines in the book are based on a few simple principles -- a couple of scales and a couple of chromatic techniques. Yet, the melodies are very diverse -- eg. with non-scale tones sometimes being on strong beats.

When I read about scale based approaches, I always think about how the music I like isn't really amenable to that kind of analysis. It's like one of those things where the book has one page on the rule and 200 pages on the exceptions. It's not that the scale based approach doesn't work, it's that it has to be applied very flexibly to get the full spectrum of sounds of jazz.

So, taking a cue from the book, a ii V I in C starts on F# against Dm7 and it sounds great. Now, I'm confident that theorists will be able to come up with several perfectly rational explanations for that note. To me, those explanations will imply that F# is a perfectly reasonable note. But, I also think that it's only a reasonable note if it is embedded in a strong line, meaning it can sound great in one line and like a clam in another. That's true of any non-scale note, which means, for me, that the model is less useful than it might seem on the surface.

And, while I'm on a rant ... do I really need to think about different scale names to alter a single note or two notes
?
For example, if I'm playing on G7, it could be:

straight mixo
lyd dom (D goes to C#)
mel min for b13
harm min for b9 b13
a different mel min for b9 #9
etc.

What happened to learning the sounds of altered 5ths and 9ths by ear and just playing them? That, btw, is the approach this book seems to take.

I'm aware that just knowing what altered 5th and 9ths sound like won't get you to the full spectrum of sounds either. But, I think it's a pretty reasonable way to begin. After that, it may all be borrowing and interchange and so forth (fairly new terms to me) -- what we used to call chord substitution. And, finding ways to take the usual pools of notes and combine them in cool ways to find your own sounds.

Well, that was too long for an "aside".

I don't claim to understand borrowing and modal interchange, although I've read some about it. When I finally get to examples, a lot of them are consistent with what I learned from Warren Nunes (and is taught by others). Two type of chords, tonic and dominant. All interchangeable within a type. Tritone subs. Chromatic neighbor approaches. Altered fifths and ninths. Best learned IMO one sound at a time.

[Tal_175]

My point if you don't get what's implied or even worse... as tal175 did... come to uninformed conclusions...

And what conclusions did I reach? Did you stop to think that?

about a teaching approach ... that your not really qualified to draw.... besides choosing to do so because you believe you can see the purpose etc... I mean all I can really do is laugh... and hope you can really play... because your not going to get many call backs for gigs from your musical verbal skills.

Class act!
Anyway I don't think you're responding to the content of what I said in this thread, I get that you didn't like my response to your earlier post. Hope you'll find something better to do rest of the weekend than lashing out to a random person on the internet.

[christianm77]

Only have the one DVD. But it's the scales from different scale degrees at the front I think, and dominant later.

Again though, that's kind of my POINT in the first place: you don't look at something on paper one time and make a pronouncement about teachers entire philosophy. I don't think you can take the fact that that DVD booklet has scales first thing on page 1 and then say that Barry Harris is a "scale guy",.... that he advocates "scales first" ,..... that he's opposed to transcription etc. etc. Even to talk about what he's doing as being just "scales" isn't really fair . (More about rhythm etc. in my mind). And we probably shouldn't be addressing anything that way without having REALLY studied it anyway, right? I mean, I haven't seen that anyone has actually been through the Gary Burton course .

I just feel like these larger philosophical LEAPS and labeling were taking place a great deal in the thread, and it bothers me.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

Oh it’s just internet bullshit

[Reg]

Hey rpjazz... yea your approach works great.... but there are other musically organized other ways to also approach your example,,, of F# and D-7

When you start to become aware of different relationships besides altered and non-chord tones... it helps organize which organization your implying or even have the possibility of using beside... I LIKE IT.

I mean are you really thinking or hearing single note resolutions when you play.... are you just playing whole notes... Just in dealing with II V I's there are any number of approaches for developing solos and comping. If your just playing basic 7th chords and a few tension resolve V I resolutions.... I mean your going to put the rest of the band asleep... Basically all that shit is already implied and probably played.

The other detail when using tension resolve or release... it works much better when the organization one uses for creating tension release also has a few levels or at least a few expanded versions of... which can be carried over into longer phrases... sections of tune.... when you create perceptions of organized patterns that at least imply some feel of repeat. That spatial shape thing.

Example so say instead of just thing V7 or dominant tension or 1/2 step resolution... maybe take an 8 bar phrase and pick tonal targets... the physical locations of the phrase of music where you want to be the high point... a transition, pivot what ever you choose or... feel ... that you want to help shape your solo. Now if you choose of feel a few targets... tonal or melodic... thet are all the same eventually... it's just how you choose to realize, its, not scales or chords etc... everything is going on all the time. you may not or just choose not to hear. No eight or wrong'
Anyway your choice of alterations or non chord tones... whatever you choose to to call them..... when you also organize the harmonic organization from where your pulling those notes really works better when to don't mix and match different implications.

I get it... most play jazz standards... and basically just play vanilla... basic changes and approach, passing maybe some II V s etc... so you don't really need to have organization of different levels of possible harmonic organization.... but that get really boring... but works great for background music mayby a a straight vocalist... academic settings... I mean you probable have a little trouble getting through non standard tune with jazz tempos... on stage 1st time seeing the tune or arrangement... Most do ... I played gig last night like that... but the rhythm section.... great drum/ base and me.... we were elevating the music.... anyway... if you just keep doing the same shit.... that's where your headed.

I'm old school I learned from playing with old jazz players. who basically created that approach with jazz harmony.... back then there were the players who could pull from the blues and those who... just couldn't. Neither bad or wrong.... but the gigs were and are very different.

At least you seem to realize there is more... borrowing and modal interchange are very different... I've posted many times... but will get into again.... maybe not on 175's thread... we don't seem to get along... oh well.

[christianm77]

On the other hand the players of the 1950s (to my ears) reached a high degree of harmonic uniformity.

If you are interested in that period, something like the Barry approach makes sense. Hank Mobley, and so on. It's a great starting point even if you end up moving on.

That said, there is a hegemonic quality to CST. I mean, 20 years ago I remember being amazed to discover there were older musicians who didn't use CST language to describe what they did.