Interesting quotes on the effect of modal jazz on jazz pedagogy...

[ksjazzguitar]

In researching the whole modal jazz thing (more on that later) at the library, I came across some intersting quotes that reflect on the whole chord/scale approach to jazz. Some people now call it "modal" because it seems to have origins in modal playing. From the Ashley Kahn book, Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece. The author notes:

Some jazz educators point out the downside of the album's influence. The argument holds that the simplicity of Kind of Blue - and of modal jazz in general - lets young musicians bypass such components of jazz training as understanding the chordal relationships and harmonic. p. 190

So, this modal approach potentially leads to the danger of not understand how tonal harmony functions.


She quotes Bill Crow:

Kind of Blue is where younger players start listening. They don't go back before. p. 190

So, they don't learn how bebop works, how to really use guide tones, etc. That's why we have people making ridiculous statements like "Bebop is just playing fast scales."


Dick Katz adds:

A big chunk of jazz education right now is based on that [modal] concept, to teach kids to improvise even if they have only mastered their instrument halfway well. To me, it's like doing it by the numbers. p. 190

Cannonball says:

All you had to do [to play modal jazz] was just be able to play your instrument well enough to make [the improvisations] more complex from a technical point of view. But there's nothing to do but play those [scales] in different ways. So it gave vent to a lot of people who didn't have anything to say in terms of thought. p. 190

Davis himself says:

I don't like guys who make a livin' playin' in the mode ... We just did it because it's one style ... [modal jazz] would get monotonous if you'd sit there a long time. p. 190

Wow. As we'd discussed in other threads, apparently even Miles thinks that "pure" modal jazz can only go so far. Can we apply that criticism to the "quasi-modalification" of all jazz theory that seems to come out of the 70s pedagogy and has taken over?

One section deals with the relation of modal jazz and free jazz. Jimmy Heath mentions:

A lot of free players relished in modal playing, because they couldn't connect the changes like their predecessors, you know [Presumably he means that they can't outline chord changes as well as the bebop players.] You can get right in the groove, because you're not thinking about, "Well, this is the Fm7, this goes here, the Bm there." People who can play tonally and inside the changes were able to play in the modal style more convincingly to me than the free guys. I can't speak generally, because some of them could play very good in the the free style. Ornette could play anything and it was swinging. But I'm speaking of some of the followers.

So, he thinks that having learned to "play the changes" helps even when there are no functional changes. Interesting.

Of course, none of this is a "smoking gun" - it's just some guys' opinions.

The book also mentions the approach as a nice introduction for beginners and it does help them focus on melodic thinking (instead of the math of resolving lines.) Burton makes the argument that modal jazz is fine as long as there is a balance. Most of us would agree with that, but some of us think that the "quasi-modalification" has taken over everything and it has all just become "play this scale/mode over this chord" and many players never truly "go back before" as Crow puts it.

I just thought they were interesting.

Peace,
Kevin

[Stackabones]

Good post, Kevin. Thanks for putting all these quotes together. Definitely makes you reconsider things.

Overall, how is that book on KoB? IIRC there's another that came out around the same time.

[ksjazzguitar]

I looked at both of them briefly but didn't get to dig deeply. I'll have to check it out when I get a better chance.

Peace,
Kevin

[Stackabones]

Cool. I think my library has both, and I'll probably end just reading each one.

[mr. beaumont]

This is interesting to me, espeicially because I don't find "modal" jazz to be really modal...it's more like "tonality based music," music based on patches of a key center as opposed to swiftly changing chords.

Of course, in the early modal stuff, the concept was new, and I definitely hear players still playing "chords" over the modes--superimposing changes if you will. It's most certainly not some cat blowing mixolydian for 24 bars, followed by some other scale...

It seems to me that "modal" jazz was the step that really put chord-scale theory to the forefront of jazz education. Funny that a music that was a simplification of ideas made things so much more difficult for beginners who came after!

I tell my young students, if they start to get into jazz, that we're putting scales away. Invariably, they want to play something "modal," because well, Kind of Blue's a classic, but also because a lot of beginners, especially those coming from a rock bacjgound, seem to view modes as some kind of hoodoo magic...

[timscarey]

I dig this post a lot. Thanks.

I do agree with a lot of what you quoted, although, I don't really see it as a positive or negative thing. I really feel like the chord/scale approach to jazz really has allowed many people to improvise on and compose music with a different sound. When I was cutting my teeth on the scene here in seattle, a lot of the music I soloed on was just non diatonic "modal" vamps with a few chords per section. Modes totally came in handy. I feel like a lot of the players don't really care to learn to play changes because their friends don't do it and there are no gigs for it.

Some of us do it because we love it and are ambitious, but I think "kind of blue" really opened the door to improvisation to even those without mind blowing chops and years of intense study. Luckily, I think the average listener can still tell the difference.

[mr. beaumont]

Absolutely tim-- much of my favorite music was recorded after KoB-- the only problem I have with the chord scale approach is when I see beginners trying to force it bop tunes.

[Drumbler]

Whenever someone advises a newcomer to start off their jazz journey with "Kind of Blue" I have the urge to stick my finger down my throat and vomit.

[ksjazzguitar]

This is interesting to me, espeicially because I don't find "modal" jazz to be really modal...it's more like "tonality based music," music based on patches of a key center as opposed to swiftly changing chords.

I hear what you say. But I don't really like the word "tonality" because that might imply "tonal" - the opposite of modal.

I still argue that there is a "pure" modal jazz, if you look at Miles' playing on KOB. His solo on "So What" is clearly not tonal. I think that it is fair to call it modal in the sense that the Impressionists experimented with modality. And even in medieval modality, there were chords, they just didn't think of them as chords and they didn't have to move functionally (although the increasingly did as time went on - the move from modal to tonal was gradual.)

But I do agree that much of what gets labeled as modal nowadays is far from it. But I don't think that the goal is to play pure modal but to make good music - it's a spice, that's all. Larry Carlton's solo on "So What" (the ablum Last Nite) is phenomenal, but it is not really modal. He kinda starts off modal for a chorus or so (with a few detours) and then gradually goes into Larry-land.

But pure modal playing (as the greats say) is boring after a while. It is just one possible texture.

Some of us do it because we love it and are ambitious, but I think "kind of blue" really opened the door to improvisation to even those without mind blowing chops and years of intense study. Luckily, I think the average listener can still tell the difference.

It certainly opened the door for me. And it is great training wheels. But the problem is that many people never get past the training wheels - many don't even realize that they're still on.

As to listeners telling the difference, I don't know. I've seen many mediocre bands that were polished enough to fool people. Some of the most successful jazz guys I've played with have been some of the least talented - they just had a polished product and knew how to hustle gigs. I think that the average listener can't really tell the difference that well. Heck I've known plenty of jazz players that can't tell the difference between when someone is playing the changes and someone is running the scales - heck, many think that it is the same thing (don't get me started!)

...the only problem I have with the chord scale approach is when I see beginners trying to force it bop tunes.

Definately. Of course, I also have the small beef that "mode" has been demoted to "scale" but even if I ignore that, this modal/scalar approach has taken over everything. That's all anyone talks about, "What scale do I use?" I tell my students to target the chord tones more, "But I'm playing the correct mode, aren't I?"

And yeah, it is ridiculous to try and superimpose that modal/scalar thinking onto bebop. If that's how you want to play bebop tunes go ahead, but don't confuse that with the bebop style of improv - they are two very different things.

If you want to learn to ride a horse, you can't do it by riding motorcycles.

Peace,
Kevin

[jayx123]

Great post Kevin, thanks.

[Shadow of the Sun]

I think one reason that a lot of players get caught up in the modal/scalar type of thinking is that in jazz pedagogy these days, the first solo most folk transcribe is Miles on So What. At which point people say: "Oh hey, this was all done with scales! Everything else should be able to be done with scales, too!"

[ksjazzguitar]

Thanks Jayx123, glad to see you're still bopping around.

Yeah, Shadow, but I think that teachers must take some of the blame too. I chalk it up to laziness and perhaps even ignorance - most of these guys teaching these days were brought up in this "scales/modes are the answer" culture.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

because that might imply "tonal" - the opposite of modal.

I suspect that was just a slip of the pen, but the opposite of "tonal" might be "atonal," certainly not "modal," not even in jazz. "Modal" is definitely tonal, or should be, because as Mr Beaumont says, modes have a key centre. The Wikipedia definition of "tonality" is "a system of writing music involving the relationship of pitch to some centered key," which doesn't exclude modes in any way, on the contrary. And to stray outside the context of jazz a tiny bit, in fiddle tune collections and the like, modal folk tunes are often given with both their mode (more or less constant) and their key (transposable, naturally).

I'm not arguing with what you are saying about modes sometimes having a negative effect in jazz. "Too much, too soon" plays a part, I feel - going straight to Miles Davis modal without going through "What Shall We Do with the Drunken Sailor" or "Old Joe Clark" first can't be right.

[ksjazzguitar]

I suspect that was just a slip of the pen, but the opposite of "tonal" might be "atonal," certainly not "modal," not even in jazz. "Modal" is definitely tonal, or should be, because as Mr Beaumont says, modes have a key centre. ...

Well, it depends on which definition of "tonal" you're using. In classical music, "tonal" can mean what you're saying. But it can also mean that there is a tonic-dominant relationship and functional harmony. The word "tonal" is often used to distinguish from any music that doesn't have functional harmony, including modal. For example, my Baroque counterpoint book was called Tonal Counterpoint, clearly to distinguish it from the modal counterpoint that came before.

Wikipedia (*sigh*) also says, "... today the term [tonality] is most often used to refer to Major-Minor tonality (also called diatonic tonality, common practice tonality, or functional tonality) ..." That is the usage that is most familiar to me, with an emphasis on "functional." To me, "atonal" is the opposite of both modal and tonal, or anything that centers around a pitch-home.

I admit, there is some ambiguity. That's why I said "I don't really like the word 'tonality' because that might imply 'tonal' - the opposite of modal. [emphasis added]." But perhaps I could have been clearer. Perhaps I should have said "an opposite of modal."

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

Right.

I suppose I could have said a "key center approach," but then we get into the way folks will navigate fast changes or blur ii-V's and such...I'm struggling to find the right terminology to describe what I'm talking about, but at least you guys understood it!

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah, I hear you, there are many ways that are being used to describe that.

"Key center approach" works. I like "chord/scale approach" or "scalar thinking" or "playing the scale changes" or "non-functional playing." "Running the scales" would work but too many people think of it as a compliment. In another thread, someone used the term "pandiatonic" - while I see what they were getting at, I think that that has such a specific meaning in classical that it would be a confusing misapplication.

"Tonality based music" would work if we could guarantee that everyone was understanding the same definition of "tonality."

Peace,
Kevin