-
Actually, could you elaborate on that?
Originally Posted by Reg
Because in most cases I think I can analyze jazz in tonal-harmony terms,
but perhaps it's not correct? I'm probably in the 'don't see or hear' category..
-
04-06-2012 03:14 PM
-
If you're going to work out fingerings for every mode of every scale you'll be wasting a lot of time you could be playing music.
-
I really enjoy Galper's master class vids but I have not yet arrived at the point where I think they are the be all end all gospel of how to approach all of jazz music- especially in a modern context. I suspect that Galper and I would part ways of opinion on a lot of the younger guitarists that I find to be quite musical. Maybe even in what we deem to be 'good' jazz music (though obviously his opinion would carry a lot more weight than mine!). Originally Posted by JonR
Now this is not to say that I will not come to believe that Galper is 100% correct someday but as of now, I am finding a combination of his ideas (ie traditional approach) as well as CST/ modal fingerings to be worthy of exploring.
I am currently studying with Sheryl Bailey and she teaches both approaches. Kind of the training wheel idea I think as Reg puts it. While she always reminds me that she is mainly thinking in terms of chord tones and alterations when soloing ala the old school masters she does relate a lot of useful info through CST options as well.
Galper's rant makes it seem like anyone mentioning modes or CST is selling you BS which I don't believe. I don't think Scofield is selling BS when he discusses practicing CST as one viable approach in a broader study of harmony. I don't think Sheryl is either.
Also there are times when CST is just going to be a clusterf**k and other times, specifically 'modal' vamps, where CST can be employed melodically and effectively.
Part of the equation when discussing all of this has to be how each individual processes information (ie we all learn differently) as well as each individuals end goals as a musician.
Does your interest in jazz end at Wes or are you more influenced by Rosenwinkel? Are you trying to master Billies Bounce in a traditional style or are you working towards composing in a more modern style?
How about aesthetically? How are your favorite players approaching their solos? Does ripping a scale based sequence over four bars of a solo sound good to you personally or does it make you cringe? Does sounding like Wes excite you or does it bore you? Can you employ old school approaches in an exciting new way or can you employ modern approaches to reinvent tradition?
I don't have the answers to those questions yet but so far I am finding every approach I've been taught to have some value. I want to explore it all and decide for myself what to keep and what to throw away.
I suspect as Reg said, that once I lose the training wheels I will move past a need for thinking in scales but just like Bailey and Scofield and many other great guitarists, I would like to have knowledge of both approaches readily at my fingertips.
I don't think anything is a waste of time as long as you are enjoying the process of exploration and growing as a musician. The process of elimination can be a valuable tool in defining your own voice.
That's where I'm at for now anyway. As I am currently spiraling a bit haphazardly down this rabbit hole known as jazz, all opinions expressed in this post are subject to change at any time.
Last edited by Jazzpunk; 04-06-2012 at 05:47 PM.
-
My approach at the most general level is quite different. I am old and don't have a lot of time to waste. Let's step back from music for a moment. In other fields, about 90% of the written material is crap and 1-2% is brilliant. You really do want to figure out as quickly as possible what that 2% is. I am not bullshitting here. I could give you a bunch of examples in different fields and some amusing anecdotes. And while it may seem worthwhile to read everything, for every crappy thing you read, there is some brilliant thing you could have read. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Now, let's get more specific and talk about music and the theory of music. Holdsworth said that once he realized he would never know it all, he stopped worrying about it. In other words, there is no real end to musical theory. And music theory presents further problems because there is no sharp line telling you where the theory ends and the aesthetics begins. So it is not so easy to say this is in 90% crap part and that is 1% brilliant part.
And then there is this thing called life that sneaks up on you and one day you don't have time to work through the examples in Riemann. Maybe you got Susie pregnant. Maybe Dave Holland wants you to go on the road. You'll wish you had read Riemann back when you were hanging out on jazzguitar.be rather than reading that crappy book by X.
At this point what I want from the pros is to tell me the handful of books that an intermediate guy like myself has to read. I don't want 10 titles because I don't have time for that. I want the absolutely essential no more than 5 titles that I have to read. Evidently, CST is not the way to go. So I guess I need some functional harmony and voice leading books! Stick with me Jazzpunk and we'll get the good stuff from these guys. Gimme some titles and nobody gets hurt. Just the good stuff.
P.S. Jazzpunk, Galper is definitely not ranting. I don't appreciate everything he is saying, but that is what good stuff looks and smells like. Recognizing that look and that smell is partly how we solve the chicken and egg problem of knowing where to find the good stuff before we actually know what the good stuff is.
P.P.S. What do you guys think about us taking at least one day a week off? I miss weekly lessons! These daily sometimes hourly lessons are overwhelming!Last edited by jster; 04-06-2012 at 07:03 PM.
-
What or which concept would you like me to elaborate on... Originally Posted by hed_b94
Actually, could you elaborate on that?
Because in most cases I think I can analyze jazz in tonal-harmony terms,
but perhaps it's not correct? I'm probably in the 'don't see or hear' category..
Modal functions
using modal function concepts with tonal-harmony
non-functional Melodic Minor usage
MM as source for Blue notes, blue note influenced harmony
Modal interchange... not sure what your interested in.
It is possible to analyze much of jazz harmonic usages with tonal or functional harmony... especially when looking at lead sheets.
But the changes... generally imply much more than the basic changes notated... it miss some of the details... and when you use that type of analysis to somewhat organize your playing as well as your hearing... it becomes very vanilla... very straight... show tunes jazz, movie scores etc...
Background jazz... nothing wrong... I play gigs like that all the time... I play differently... I play like I'm a traditionally educated dude playing jazz tunes... not a jazz player. Again no good, bad, simply different. Hell many of those gigs pay well...
Anyway I have posted on many of those concepts... but will gladly do so again... Reg
-
Jon R called it a 'rant' so I addressed it as such. No disrespect towards Galper intended. I dig what he's saying I'm just not there yet. Originally Posted by jster
I also dig other players and the music they make so I'm listening to and considering what they have to say as well.
Good luck on your journey!
-
04-07-2012, 06:32 AM #32Nuff Said GuestLike most folk, I organize the Modes of a scale on the Fretboard from the lowest note to the highest. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
So for the 7 Major Modes, there are 7 positions, one for each mode, starting with the Root note of each mode on the Low E string.
Same principle for 7 Melodic Minor Modes.
The organisation of the fretboard is fairly simple, playing good music is difficult.
NuffLast edited by Nuff Said; 04-07-2012 at 06:36 AM. Reason: Lowest note to the highest.
-
Doesn't that mean you only have one position for each mode (the one with the root on the low E string)? Can you quickly find, e.g., Eb Dorian at the 6th fret using this approach? Originally Posted by Nuff Said
Yeah, amen to that. Originally Posted by Nuff Said
-
Yes, he's clearly talking from a historical perspective; but I think that's kind of the point, in the context of those classes that have been video'd for youtube. Jazz education (at least for the students he seems to have, who are technically skilled, but less experienced in jazz) has to be about understanding the history and development, how we got to where we are. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
All pro jazz musicians, in my experience, know and respect the history, even if they don't play in a vintage style - and most don't of course.
I see him as attempting to clarify the way jazz was always played, because of the risk in some jazz education of getting too technical, and applying modern theories where they don't belong, and where they don't really help.
As Joe Henderson once said, he felt many young jazz musicians (fresh out of college) played solos that sounded "like the index of a book". IOW, technically correct, all the right scales (even some very interesting ones maybe), but no musical content, no ideas. As he saw it. But of course Henderson was a vintage jazzman himself!
OK, but what audience cares about "modal fingerings"? (even as a player, I don't.) It's beside the point. CST, too, is kind of a technical issue, it's not about music. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
I agree that all points of view are worth considering and absorbing (and HG's is only one perspective, authoritative as it is), but it's the music that comes out in the end that matters.
Modes are not fingerings, as we've said. Modes are not a technique, they're a sound, which is not achieved by fingering in a certain way.
IOW, call your fret patterns modes if you like, and absorb CST as deeply as you like. It's only technique and raw material. Where are your musical ideas going to come from?
(I'm not suggesting that modern concepts prevent you from coming up with ideas. But I do think that those old concepts HG is talking about are good ways of reliably accessing ideas, producing music, even in contemporary jazz.)
Yes, I think CST has its place as a way of describing certain choices. It doesn't have to be something separate from older practices, nor something that should replace them. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
No, but I do think it often ignores what matters. Scale choice is a side issue. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
I've seen a couple of those Scofield youtubes, where he seems very ill at ease, talking about CST as if it's just a way of filling the lecture time. As HG says, it's easy to talk about and teach: it's a logical "system", coherent in itself; it makes perfect sense. It's not "wrong", it's just kind of beside the point. Yes, you can use this scale on this chord. But why? and when? Are you just going to play that scale when you see that chord? What about phrase-making, melody and rhythm?
Of course, Scofield understands all those things (you can tell from his playing), but - and he is plainly not a teacher - they're much more difficult to explain to a class of students.
If Scofield were to play a musical phrase that made you go "wow, what was that?", the scale he chose would only be a very small part of the answer, and probably not the most important one.
There's a great B B King lesson on youtube which is instructive in an unintentional way: he plays a nice little phrase to demonstrate a simple concept, but then can't repeat the phrase when asked - he forgot what it was. Instead, to demonstrate the concept again, he plays a quite different phrase. And finds it hard to explain other than to say "and that's how I resolve it." IOW, his system of ideas is subconscious: he can talk about technical things (up to a point) but can't describe what it is that makes his phrases sound good. IOW, if you want to actually play like B B King, you won't get any clues from the techniques discussed there. (You could follow that advice and still end up with something dull or mechnical.)
Scofield's videos (the ones I've seen), are the same, but at a higher level. IOW he is discussing much more complicated techniques (CST etc), but is still not addressing the nitty gritty. And it's not entirely his fault - not only is the real deal harder to talk about, but the students aren't asking questions like that anyway. (Unless I missed something - I might well have)
HG is going the other way - trying to get at the kernel of where "musical" improvisation comes from, trying to get back to basics. As such, he is (perhaps) rather too impatient with CST, because it doesn't address the issue at all. (And really - whatever its value in other respects - it doesn't.)
Exactly. Modal jazz is really where CST makes most sense, as it was (AFAIK) derived from that in the first place. Modal jazz (in its purest form) really was/is about "a chord and a scale", and that's it. Or even just a scale, to be honest (with a defined root, and various possible harmonizations on top); and melodic exploration freed of the need to follow changes. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
It was a way of breaking out of the straitjacket of functional key progressions (the frantic roller-coaster-on-rails of bebop). It was seen as a liberation, a great move forward in the musical expression of jazz. And it was.
But that Great New Idea can't really be applied to key-based chord progressions, not without making nonsense of them. They're really all about linear drive: "horizontal" melody and rhythm, rather than the "verticality" of individual chords. Chords in that music exist (are chosen) because of how they link to the next one, not because of how they sound (modally) in their own right.
Of course, this is a somewhat artificial distinction in modern jazz. You rarely find any modern tune that is either purely functional or purely modal. Concepts of both kinds can and should be understood, and applicable.
(IOW, I'm still agreeing with you that CST has its place!)
Exactly right. Jazz is nothing if it's not a personal choice, and constantly contemporary. It builds on the past, but only in order to move forward, to constantly reinvent itself. It has to be - to use a horribly overused word - relevant. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
There is too much revivalism in jazz for my liking. (I like a lot of old jazz, on record, but when I see it live I want it to sound like NOW, not THEN.)
Which is - sorry if this sounds patronising - as it should be! We're improvisers, right? That's really the whole point of this business. You take the raw material - whether that's a tune, a chord progression, or just a single chord-scale - and you make something out of it. Ideally "music", of course! Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
I suspect as Reg said, that once I lose the training wheels I will move past a need for thinking in scales but just like Bailey and Scofield and many other great guitarists, I would like to have knowledge of both approaches readily at my fingertips.
I don't think anything is a waste of time as long as you are enjoying the process of exploration and growing as a musician. The process of elimination can be a valuable tool in defining your own voice.
That's where I'm at for now anyway. As I am currently spiraling a bit haphazardly down this rabbit hole known as jazz, all opinions expressed in this post are subject to change at any time.
(And what "good" music consists of is in the ear of the beholder after all.)Last edited by JonR; 04-07-2012 at 07:25 AM.
-
Not me..., Originally Posted by Nuff Said
Yes, I see that principle, as a way of naming patterns. Originally Posted by Nuff Said
But of course it has no connection with how one applies the patterns musically, nor with the sounds of those modes in practice.
My only problem with naming fret patterns after modes is that some people can get the idea that there is a connection with modal playing, that one needs to choose just one of those patterns for any specific chord.
"Oh, there's a Bb7#11, that means I have to choose this mode/pattern of F melodic minor (Bb as lowest note)..."
Like any scale, F melodic minor runs all over the neck, and if you want a Bb lydian dominant sound, you only need a Bb7 chord, and then any pattern of that scale.
(I'm sure you know this - just in case beginners are reading... )
And personally I think in chord shapes (plus extensions) anyway, not scale patterns.
True enough. And we don't want to make it more difficult than it has to be... Originally Posted by Nuff Said
-
04-07-2012, 08:07 AM #36Nuff Said GuestYou practice each mode from each string, then you know instinctively all the modes from anywhere. Originally Posted by Rich Cochrane
From the 6th fret:
E string = Bb Aeolian
A string = Eb Dorian
D string = Ab Mixolydian
G string = Db Ionian
Etc
Its the same pattern for each mode.
NuffLast edited by Nuff Said; 04-07-2012 at 08:08 AM. Reason: Its the same pattern for each mode.
-
Oh, gotcha, I misunderstood the first time, thought you meant 6th string only Originally Posted by Nuff Said
-
by pattern do you mean fingering pattern? that's logical so i assume so. Originally Posted by Nuff Said
but if its the "same pattern" then that's one position, right? where are the other six "positions", per your above post? how are you defining "position"?
-
04-07-2012, 12:48 PM #39Nuff Said Guest7 modes have 7 patterns from each note on a string. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
F Melodic Minor Scale
F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D, E,
E string
1st fret = F
3rd fret = G
4th fret = Ab
6th fret = Bb
8th fret = C
10th fret = D
12th fret = E
Here's the G Melodic Minor Mode patterns.
melodic minor scale: 3 note per string patterns
These patterns are not music, only one of many ways to organize the fretboard, to help you to be able to play anything, anywhere.
NuffLast edited by Nuff Said; 04-07-2012 at 12:54 PM. Reason: These patterns are not music, only one of many ways to organize the fretboard, so you can play anything, anywhere.
-
Originally Posted by Nuff Said
i am still having a little trouble understanding your terminology, i'm sorry.
for example, assuming traditional/CAGED fingerings:
the 7 modes of the major scale have 2, 2-octave patterns each, starting on the 6th string. thats 14 2-octave patterns from the 6th string for the 7 modes.
agreed?
-
I'm interested in all of them, but probably the one I'm really not sure about is using modal function concepts with tonal-harmony! Originally Posted by Reg
-
04-07-2012, 03:52 PM #42Nuff Said GuestPlease look at the link: Originally Posted by fumblefingers
melodic minor scale: 3 note per string patterns
Each Pattern represent a Melodic Minor mode from the Low E string. 7 patterns for 7 Modes.
FumbleFingers, if you haven't already, I suggest you Learn the Melodic Minor Modes all over the fretboard.
NuffLast edited by Nuff Said; 04-10-2012 at 04:25 AM. Reason: Learn the Melodic Minor Modes.
-
Originally Posted by JonR
Yes, he's clearly talking from a historical perspective; but I think that's kind of the point, in the context of those classes that have been video'd for youtube. Jazz education (at least for the students he seems to have, who are technically skilled, but less experienced in jazz) has to be about understanding the history and development, how we got to where we are.
All pro jazz musicians, in my experience, know and respect the history, even if they don't play in a vintage style - and most don't of course.
I see him as attempting to clarify the way jazz was always played, because of the risk in some jazz education of getting too technical, and applying modern theories where they don't belong, and where they don't really help.
As Joe Henderson once said, he felt many young jazz musicians (fresh out of college) played solos that sounded "like the index of a book". IOW, technically correct, all the right scales (even some very interesting ones maybe), but no musical content, no ideas. As he saw it. But of course Henderson was a vintage jazzman himself!
OK, but what audience cares about "modal fingerings"? (even as a player, I don't.) It's beside the point. CST, too, is kind of a technical issue, it's not about music.
I agree that all points of view are worth considering and absorbing (and HG's is only one perspective, authoritative as it is), but it's the music that comes out in the end that matters.
Modes are not fingerings, as we've said. Modes are not a technique, they're a sound, which is not achieved by fingering in a certain way.
IOW, call your fret patterns modes if you like, and absorb CST as deeply as you like. It's only technique and raw material. Where are your musical ideas going to come from?
(I'm not suggesting that modern concepts prevent you from coming up with ideas. But I do think that those old concepts HG is talking about are good ways of reliably accessing ideas, producing music, even in contemporary jazz.)
Yes, I think CST has its place as a way of describing certain choices. It doesn't have to be something separate from older practices, nor something that should replace them.
No, but I do think it often ignores what matters. Scale choice is a side issue.
I've seen a couple of those Scofield youtubes, where he seems very ill at ease, talking about CST as if it's just a way of filling the lecture time. As HG says, it's easy to talk about and teach: it's a logical "system", coherent in itself; it makes perfect sense. It's not "wrong", it's just kind of beside the point. Yes, you can use this scale on this chord. But why? and when? Are you just going to play that scale when you see that chord? What about phrase-making, melody and rhythm?
Of course, Scofield understands all those things (you can tell from his playing), but - and he is plainly not a teacher - they're much more difficult to explain to a class of students.
If Scofield were to play a musical phrase that made you go "wow, what was that?", the scale he chose would only be a very small part of the answer, and probably not the most important one.
There's a great B B King lesson on youtube which is instructive in an unintentional way: he plays a nice little phrase to demonstrate a simple concept, but then can't repeat the phrase when asked - he forgot what it was. Instead, to demonstrate the concept again, he plays a quite different phrase. And finds it hard to explain other than to say "and that's how I resolve it." IOW, his system of ideas is subconscious: he can talk about technical things (up to a point) but can't describe what it is that makes his phrases sound good. IOW, if you want to actually play like B B King, you won't get any clues from the techniques discussed there. (You could follow that advice and still end up with something dull or mechnical.)
Scofield's videos (the ones I've seen), are the same, but at a higher level. IOW he is discussing much more complicated techniques (CST etc), but is still not addressing the nitty gritty. And it's not entirely his fault - not only is the real deal harder to talk about, but the students aren't asking questions like that anyway. (Unless I missed something - I might well have)
HG is going the other way - trying to get at the kernel of where "musical" improvisation comes from, trying to get back to basics. As such, he is (perhaps) rather too impatient with CST, because it doesn't address the issue at all. (And really - whatever its value in other respects - it doesn't.)
Exactly. Modal jazz is really where CST makes most sense, as it was (AFAIK) derived from that in the first place. Modal jazz (in its purest form) really was/is about "a chord and a scale", and that's it. Or even just a scale, to be honest (with a defined root, and various possible harmonizations on top); and melodic exploration freed of the need to follow changes.
It was a way of breaking out of the straitjacket of functional key progressions (the frantic roller-coaster-on-rails of bebop). It was seen as a liberation, a great move forward in the musical expression of jazz. And it was.
But that Great New Idea can't really be applied to key-based chord progressions, not without making nonsense of them. They're really all about linear drive: "horizontal" melody and rhythm, rather than the "verticality" of individual chords. Chords in that music exist (are chosen) because of how they link to the next one, not because of how they sound (modally) in their own right.
Of course, this is a somewhat artificial distinction in modern jazz. You rarely find any modern tune that is either purely functional or purely modal. Concepts of both kinds can and should be understood, and applicable.
(IOW, I'm still agreeing with you that CST has its place!)
Exactly right. Jazz is nothing if it's not a personal choice, and constantly contemporary. It builds on the past, but only in order to move forward, to constantly reinvent itself. It has to be - to use a horribly overused word - relevant.
There is too much revivalism in jazz for my liking. (I like a lot of old jazz, on record, but when I see it live I want it to sound like NOW, not THEN.)
Which is - sorry if this sounds patronising - as it should be! We're improvisers, right? That's really the whole point of this business. You take the raw material - whether that's a tune, a chord progression, or just a single chord-scale - and you make something out of it. Ideally "music", of course!
(And what "good" music consists of is in the ear of the beholder after all.)
CST is not a separate, self contained entity removed from the other elements of making music. It's misleading to isolate CST from all of the other important aspects of playing musically and than claim it is 'besides the point'.
The point of learning is to figure out what approach works best for each individual and CST is simply another way to organize and view information. I have never read anyone advocating that CST is a self contained method that should not be used in conjunction with studying rhythm, phrasing, etc.
Per Sco, I think you are projecting a bit based on your admitted dislike for CST by stating that he looks uncomfortable due to having to discuss CST. I own one of his instructional DVD's and quite frankly he looks uncomfortable discussing any aspect of his playing lol. You definitely get the sense that he'd much rather just let his music do the talking.
I've listened to most of Sco's available teachings and practicing scales is just a small part of what he advocates. He does not claim it is the be all end all simply that it is another approach that he explores when shedding a tune. A quote:
"The way you learn this stuff is learning scales, learning patterns and experimenting with them. You know I don't know anybody that's really gotten good at playing tunes or any of this stuff from just taking the scales [and playing them over a tune]. This stuff all comes after listening and learning about Jazz music from listening to records and listening to other people play it's just you know, music...What these scales do, to me, is they lead you into almost, chromaticism—that's what the Diminished scale does. You know, chromatic type of freedom, nobody really just plays the scales."
I believe he's saying what most people with a modern slant on jazz education are saying- scales can be a means to an end but they are not the end themselves.
As far as audiences not caring about modal fingerings, audiences don't give a crap about most of the stuff we talk about here.
Again, it is a little misleading to infer that one will get out in front of an audience and run chord scales the entire time simply because they are aware of the concept and have studied it.
I think we're in agreement for the most part (not that it matters as I enjoy being challenged and appreciate all of your insights) maybe just looking at the subject from a different angle. I view CST as a teaching/learning tool to help players view available note choices not as a rigid school of thinking that must be isolated from all other approaches.
Sheryl will often give me the CST example for a progression and than follow it with "Ok, so now if you want to get deeper into a jazz approach..." and than start getting into the real heart and soul of the matter. I'm sure you could cut out the CST part as you and Galper are advocating but I do find it helpful and I enjoy having the option to view the material from different angles.
I'm sure my views on all of this will change as I advance but for now I feel I am benefiting from having CST as part of a complete approach.Last edited by Jazzpunk; 04-08-2012 at 01:14 AM.
-
Hey Hed b94... cool
Modal functional concepts... do you understand them? I've posted many times... but will gladly do so again.
Tonal harmony ... I'm sure you understand that... but the concept is using both systems together.
Ex. using characteristic pitch from implied mode to determine functional movement or resolution style of chord movement. Which is one method of playing in a modal style. Now add something from tonal harmony...could introduce duel or multiple tonal system...
So I would be using a different system for achieving tonality... a new tonal system based on modal concepts. And introducing a traditional concept from tonal harmony... basically a version multiple tonality. So the result would be a Multiple Modal... Tonal system.
Somewhat like how Trane used multiple tonal systems, usually based on maj or min 3rds and use dom chords to reinforce.
The terminology is a little loose... But would be one of many combinations...
Yea... Reg
Sorry... about changing subject matter from fingerings to theory... But I did cover my opinions about fingerings in earlier post... I know Jon and I have somewhat different opinions , views and backgrounds, but Jon has my respect... I dig his views and his posts. It's great to have different understandings... I'm sure there's much to learn from all the posts.
-
I do understand modal concepts. Originally Posted by Reg
I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure.
If I am correct, by taking a chord, that have tonal funcion, and playing on it notes from somewhere else (sort of a modal intercharge) we get that "multiple tonality"?
thanks for taking the time
-
No, but I have seen plenty of people who seem to have picked up the idea the CST is some kind of magic "one size fits all" solution to improvisation. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
I agree it's "simply another way to organize and view information". I just question how useful that view is (or when).
Right! He could just as well be talking about string guage, or picks, etc. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Of course. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
I happen to think his first sentence (out of context) is a little misleading:
"learning scales, learning patterns and experimenting with them" is essential grounding of course, familiarising oneself with the raw material.
What he goes on to say qualifies that more clearly.
"This stuff all comes after listening and learning about Jazz music from listening to records and listening to other people play" is the bit I really agree with!
(It sounds to me as if the whole quote is a response to someone asking about scales; and he's trying to open it out beyond there, and put them in context.)
Well, I think there's evidence that happens. It's tempting for a poorly educated student to take the easy route. I've been in plenty of jazz workshops where an attitude develops that a chord sequence is a kind of assault course, and if you can only get the right scales then you can emerge at the other end unscathed: "phew, made it! no wrong notes!" Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
As far as audiences not caring about modal fingerings, audiences don't give a crap about most of the stuff we talk about here. Again, it is a little misleading to infer that one will get out in front of an audience and run chord scales the entire time simply because they are aware of the concept and have studied it.
Of course that isn't the fault of CST itself! It's down to being seduced by it.
My feeling is that Galper's beef is based on being confronted by a few too many students who have picked up the idea that it's a magic bullet: that every chord progression can be tackled with CST principles alone. He's overdoing his "anti" stance, because of that kind of exasperation, that other methods of improvisation - arguably more productive - seem to have been forgotten. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
His view that's it's a "closed" system is pertinent: that's what makes it attractive to some of course; that it saves you having to think! It comes back to that "assault course" analogy. Some jazz students - it seems - really have no idea how to be creative, they're scared that they have no ideas; and CST comes to the rescue, as if it's saying "don't worry, use this scale on this chord, and everything will be fine!" You can fake your way through it, by just noodling on the right notes.
Galper - seems to me - is trying to promote the creative route: promoting a strategy that forces you to be inventive: "embellishment" - with no rules other than you start from the melody (and chord tones). That's scary because it's open. And yet that's what improvisation is all about!
That's why he goes on about vocabulary in his other talks: if you don't have the vocabulary (licks etc), how are you going to "say" anything? If an open-ended improv principle is scary, that's because you lack ideas; and you lack ideas because you lack vocabulary. Because you haven't listened to enough jazz or copied enough phrases or licks.
CST doesn't have to get in the way of this - indeed, it's another resource of raw material, another way to look at the given material of a tune. But that's all it is. Keep it in its place and its fine.
(Personally I happen to think one can do without it almost all the time, but having it in reserve doesn't have to be a problem.)
-
i think its best described as seven patterns for the melodic minor scale and it's modes. Originally Posted by Nuff Said
and - those seven fingering patterns provide at least two, two-octave fingerings from the sixth string for all seven modes, and three two-octave fingerings from the sixth string for several of the modes.
-
I think given that Nuff can find the fingering for any mode/key/position combination this is probably just a question of terminology. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
For important scales I'd still advocate learning each mode relative to the root-position triad it contains because it's not a lot of extra work and makes it more practical to use in context. But that's not mandatory if you can find and use the notes you want when improvising.
As for the Galper video, I think it's important to distinguish between "using scales over chords" and full-on Berkeley/Nettles-Graf type CST. The latter makes a strong claim about the fundamental nature of jazz you either buy or you don't.
I don't think he's saying nobody should ever use scales to organise their playing, more that (a) CST isn't a good general theory about jazz, (b) scale-based thinking can become a crutch that makes you creatively lazy and (c) zooming up and down scales stepwise doesn't give an authentic jazz sound.
-
i'm not so concerned about Nuff's particular ability, although i'm not convinced that he can do what you say, based upon the articulation used here. it seems to me that a few things have yet to be realized. Originally Posted by Rich Cochrane
for example - assuming only five (5) traditional/CAGED fingering patterns:
a guitarist should know at least 49 one-octave fingerings to cover all 7 modes of a diatonic scale. (and a few more to be honest). likewise, 21 two-octave fingerings for the 7 modes of a diatonic scale (and again, a few more than that).
the seven patterns shown above actually enable more fingerings than that, and Leavitt's more still. that's partially why I wrote "at least" above.
fingering patterns like CAGED or the seven presented above, simply cover the fingerboard's range. there is no magic in whether there are 5 (CAGED) patterns, or seven, or 9, or 12 etc. they certainly help the guitarist begin to unlock and navigate the fretboard, but need to be decomposed in order to fully understand what one "knows" as a result of learning them.Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-10-2012 at 08:29 PM.
-
04-11-2012, 12:17 PM #50Nuff Said GuestIf you keep practising, it will get easier over time, don't worry about other people's ability, just practice, practice, practice. You will get there. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Nuff
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale