-
also chord/scales are not the same thing as scales....
-
05-01-2021 01:25 PM
-
Well, if you include all the diatonic "Church" modes, synthetic scales, scales borrowed from World music genres, etc. then of course scales as a subject are different from the jazz concept of "which scales do you play over which chords" like the chart in the Aebersold books.
Originally Posted by christianm77
I was referring to the two basic approaches to playing chord changes most common in jazz today.
-
Then you sounded better than the other way around, lol. Originally Posted by DavidKOS
-
I thought I was lucky to have grown up in New Orleans and had the chance to study with older players (in the 1970's) and with more contemporary teachers like Les Wise when he was still at "world of Strings", back when Emily Remler was around. Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
-
sure I get that. But that’s not really what I meant Originally Posted by DavidKOS
Well, if you include all the diatonic "Church" modes, synthetic scales, scales borrowed from World music genres, etc. then of course scales as a subject are different from the jazz concept of "which scales do you play over which chords" like the chart in the Aebersold books.
I was referring to the two basic approaches to playing chord changes most common in jazz today.
chords scales are harmonic objects in themselves, scales otoh work in a specific way to connect chord tones etc. The implication with chord scales is that they can be turned into patterns, voicings and intervallic lines etc, but within jazz there’s endless examples of scales simply being scales and going up and down and joining up chord tones in melodies. Right from the 20s. (There’s also chord scale implications in embryonic form, but that’s another screed.)
A good example is the so called ‘bebop scale’ where some notes are chord tones and others are connecting tissue, but the way scales going up and down by steps were used to describe chord changes by players like Bird isn’t really the same thing as chord scale theory.
It was listening to Bird and Bud that made me realise this.
CST doesn’t really differentiate between harmonic tones and non harmonic tones. It talks about ‘avoid notes’ but the implication is that, well, they are to be avoided. (Which is one reason perhaps why jazz is increasingly about the realisation of harmonies rather than the harmonisation of melodies.)
OTOH a scale like the melodic minor is preferred because all the notes can be harmonic, which is great if you are making voicings, but not really how scales work in the melodic lines of Bach and Bird.
Probably a rather obvious point, and there’s obviously an overlap but I think it’s an important and helpful distinction to make. I wish they’d call chord scales something else like ‘colour pitch sets’ or something.
-
Interesting. Honestly I'm not sure I see some of the distinctions you make - in terms of basic classical music theory, scales when harmonized produce chords; certain chords are only found in certain scales. That's how I tend to think. I'll think more about what you suggest. Originally Posted by christianm77
My impression is that the current chord-scale method has more to do with playing styles after Trane's sheets of sounds and Miles' modal years than with Parker's playing.
-
Yes, especially Herbie and that generation of pianists. My theory is that it was ‘hands together’ playing on piano as opposed to bop and stride styles that necessitated this type of theory and drove it. Red Garland has b9 in one hand and 9 in the other that type of thing, before this era. Originally Posted by DavidKOS
That said It doesn’t even relate perfectly to the early modal approach TBH; if you actually sit down with those records.
for example I always wondered why I couldn’t sound good on All Blues and realised that 7#9 chords are generally handled as m7 chords or the blues scale when soloing, not the ‘altered scale’ .. for example. (Even in Kenny Wheeler recordings actually!)
in terms of earlier improvisation, you find things like ‘mixed minor’; players leaned on certain notes for effect like the major6 or 7, and they make the ii V relationships and so that give you melodic minor dominant harmony, but scalically it was all mixed up, melodies using all the minor scale tones rather than mode patterns. Sure, Charlie Christian and Bird but also Strayhorn, Horace Silver, Wes. Even Herbie does this BTW.
(It used to confuse me that Barry Harris rarely specifies which minor scale he’s using in his teaching when he’s discussing linear improv. Probably doesn’t occurs to him to do so.)
The realisation I got is that the first generation of people I always thought were using CST weren’t really at least not how it’s used today. I don’t think until Berklee became such an influential powerhouse in the 70s, basically.
Later on when the Im7 chord became more of a thing I suppose it became more important to specify a scale with the major 7 (melodic minor) and this mixed scale use becomes rarer as far as I can tell.
Ritchie Hart says that in the 70s at Berklee when he was there CST was something to give horn players who didn’t play piano and idea of what notes they could land on. Mission creep, I guess.
-
That seems to be about the time we got wind of this method of playing. Originally Posted by christianm77
"something to give horn players who didn’t play piano and idea of what notes they could land on"
That's what my earlier teachers used chord tones for.
-
And it’s great for that! Originally Posted by DavidKOS
-
Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
I'd love to see a clip of you playing the real deal non-fake jazz .. indulge me?
-
You may have confused me with someone who cares about what you would love. Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
Nah .. I just assumed you cant play shit and seems I'm right. Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
-
Stumbling upon Barry Harris was the best thing that ever happened to me.
-
I could always write a jazz blues etude for you, then you could upload your dazzling performance of it. Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
Actually you're quite unimportant to be that rude to anyone. Are you a twelve year old?
The more you post, the more you will become a pariah at JG.
I would have thought that by now, a moderator should be talking to you to make an attitude correction...
-
-
because I dare to stand up for myself, right? Take a reread, hoss. Originally Posted by StringNavigator
the offer on the etudes stands, btw.
-
Yup. I about dive out the window. That crap really isn't necessary. Originally Posted by StringNavigator
-
Everyone's mutinizing!
-
If I figured out a new chord I wanted to try by using theory and spelling it out up in 3rds instead of figuring it out aurally, it would probably set me back 5 or 6 years. Hell, my creativity would probably never recover. Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
-
Makes more sense on piano, like most jazz theory Originally Posted by Clint 55
-
Good at theory but can't play a note is kinda the theme of this thread Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
But thanks for providing an example of yet another guy like that. But who am I to judge .. Have fun doing theory!
-
Its such a theme all over. many students, people online. It’s endless. Originally Posted by Lobomov
Good at theory but can't play a note is kinda the theme of this thread
But thanks for providing an example of yet another guy like that. But who am I to judge .. Have fun doing theory!
-
I thought it was better run and transcribe something if you see a C7 because it's impossible to make up viable melodies on your own. :P Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
Or is it the "I gave my kid a lexicon and lectured it on grammar, cause we all know that starting with simple phrases or even words is no way to build a vocabulary" thread? Originally Posted by Clint 55
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos