-
I find the questions and points that you made to be valid. But I also take it all with a grain of salt. Who do I believe? All of them and none of them to varying degrees guided by my own sensibilities. It has been proven to me time and again throughout my studies that there are checks and balances to every system. So what do I do? I use everything that is at hand to the best of my ability. Much can be learned from taking in organizational systems and blending them into the the mix of our known universe. Good players/listeners never become so rigid that they exclude new ways of viewing information and making analytical judgement's unless they want to run the risk of stagnation, IMHO.
Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
I can see how teachers that adhere to strict guidelines in their own teachings because they believe that it is the best way to start someone out without sidetracking them into the vast void that we have all fell into at one time or another, keeping the student focused and on track with their methods at hand. But I bet when they play they use everything they know. The flip side is a good teacher will never shut out new possibilities by saying to the student, this is the only way to do it. I personally would not continue going to any teacher that was that rigid. Good teachers encourage students to explore and find their own way, while imparting the wisdom that they have learned, and explain to the student what their point of view is about the questions that will surely follow.
No information or system is useless in and of itself. It is only useless if one has no idea what to do with it. We as students must decide what works for us and what does not. We also need to be aware that what does not work now may change in the future. Such is the path of progress and maturity. There does come a time when we see that all paths lead to Rome, and many of them intersect and diverge quite often. But in the end you will get there if you hold your course. Some people like the most direct path, others take the scenic route. How we get there is up to us. The main thing is to enjoy the journey.Last edited by brwnhornet59; 04-18-2012 at 05:05 PM.
-
04-17-2012 05:30 PM
-
I just read the chart. Really funny and true (with broad generalizations, of course). I don't have time to read the 3 pages of comments, but perhaps I will later. Keep up the good work gersdal.
-
Thanks a lot, Jonny. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I just read the chart. Really funny and true (with broad generalizations, of course). I don't have time to read the 3 pages of comments, but perhaps I will later. Keep up the good work gersdal.
-
Re: on differing opinions of advanced players.
If I had the chance to, I would ask each one what they feel are the strengths and advantages of their viewpoint.
Did they always feel this was so? Do they perceive any blind spots, any shortcomings?
If all goes well the responses will be more nuanced than "because that's just how it is".
Assuming both made a good case for their perspective I am left with the choice of experimenting with both or
making a best guess and adjusting if I feel I guessed wrong.
Also, I factor in that people have different learning styles and we are not all trying to do the same thing in music.
Re: modal fingerings
A fingering in of itself will not automatically articulate a mode in the same way it will not automatically start playing bebop.
Any 2 octave fingering from the parent scale provides plenty of resources to express all the modes of that key.
I think it is important to know the fingerboard well enough to be able to create fingerings on the fly which includes
those that are referred to as modal fingerings.
Jimmy Bruno teaches 5 fingerings. His reasoning includes avoiding awkward stretches, keeping the fingerings as symmetrical as possible.
I know he also advocates keeping the info streamlined, more a variants of the major scale than a unique name for every micro event.
He is a fine player and a committed educator. I can appreciate and learn from his insight and wisdom without taking on his exact methodology.
-
Sorry to be defensive (an ironic statement, hah!) but I don't believe I'm being dogmatic in my contributions here. I believe CST can be used and taught intelligently, as I wrote in my first post here: Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Originally Posted by JakeIsReallyCool
The usefuless of chord scale theory is a controversial debate, but no one can deny that CST works for many. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
However, whether to refer to a scale fingering as a mode fingering seems a very simple and almost objective issue. There must be some miscommunication or misunderstanding here on either my part or yours. What do you mean that Bailey refers to fingerings by isolated mode names? All fingerings of the major scale contain all modes of the major scale. To refer to a certain major scale fingering that starts and ends on the second degree as "dorian" is probably just a verbal shortcut to get a student to play somewhere on the neck. Could you expand?
-
04-18-2012, 10:15 AM #81Nuff Said GuestJimmy Bruno originally taught "Six fingering" . Originally Posted by bako
His booklet was called "Six essential fingerings", downloaded from his site many years back, I bought it when it came out after going to one of Jimmy Bruno's teaching workshops.
So, players, even "Jimmy Bruno", change their approach to teaching improvising as more information is gathered. A lesson to us all perhaps.
Nuff
-
Now I'm really confused lol. What is CST in your mind? Can you give an example? Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Last edited by Jazzpunk; 04-18-2012 at 02:04 PM.
-
Wow, I'm away for 3 days, and an 82-post modes thread has sprung up from nowhere....
I hesitate to contribute - nothing I can add, really, except to feebly point out (in case no one has made the point strongly enough yet) that "modal jazz", "CST", and guitar fret patterns are three totally different things.
Can we maybe try and keep them separate??
(Probably not, I'm guessing...)
-
easier to explain with a guitar! Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
-
Thanks for the vid response. I was trying to illustrate the second example that you gave. How Bailey may refer to the scale for each chord in the progression as one way to view improvisation and how Bruno would not. Just as a way to show how two great players would explain their approaches differently and how this may or may not be confusing for students who are trying to figure it all out. Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Also Bailey uses the CST examples as sort of a secondary reference (or different angle to view available note choices) and always emphasizes a chord tone approach first and foremost. Just to clarify her teaching style.
I find her CST references to be really helpful but this may change as I advance through Gersdal's chart.Last edited by Jazzpunk; 04-18-2012 at 02:51 PM.
-
Yeah. We were kind of missing you in this mode frenzy Originally Posted by JonR
I intended to say something like that, but I didn't say much about fret patterns in my original post. I'll check what I originally wrote once again and see if I can improve it. Originally Posted by JonR
-
Yea... it seems to always relate to what your aware of.... and obviously most have somewhat limited references...I'm including myself...and I've been around...
What most musicians have difficulty with is being able to understand simple concepts....with multiple understandings. That's one of the difficulties of jazz... Almost like trying to perform simple math problems... but performing while using 4 or 5 bases at the same time. You come up with different answers.
We typically think in base 10....1 through 9 and start over etc... Base 5 would be 1 through 4 and start over.... bottom line different bases come up with different answers, which lead to different understandings of same problems. Not wrong...different system of understanding.
My answer to all the confusion... learn systems of understanding from the beginning... the base, and be aware of the end or at least the level required to use understanding or system at accepted functional level by so called experts.
And even more useful, don't expect Euro Classical experts to be able to explain jazz concepts of modal usage in a jazz style... No right or wrong, simply different.
Most musicians start somewhere in the middle and stay there... chord scale references... is incredible useful when used as a tool. It's simply a method of referencing a complete vertical note collection at any given horizontal point. If your not ready to be able to use and understand the information... don't use it. But don't look like a..... and preach some other source as better or... the correct choice because you may have a better understanding of concept... Yada...Yada....
In the end... most of you want to be able to play in a jazz style... It's not a one fit all type of method.
Reg
If your looking for simple answer or one fit all type of concepts... jazz may not be your thing. But if you have or can develop the abilities to have multiple concepts functioning together... there's a reason why many great players are into Jazz...
-
Cool video. I'll check the rest of your videos too... Originally Posted by JakeAcci
I guess you will find CST to be helpful as a tool when you have advanced too, but maybe have a different view on its importance ... Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
As an example. If I'm to play a tune one of the first thing I check in my preparation is:
- Is it a tune following functional harmony?
- Is it a modal tune?
- Is it a non-functional tune?
If it is a functional tune I have a lot of tools in my tool box. If it is a modal tune, I'll play something modal over it. If it is a non-functional tune I don't have very much other than CST, chord tones and "improvising around the melody" in my tool box. Of these I must admit I usually don't use CST, but I may chose to do so.
Thanks for your input!
-
Sheez, I had a feeling you might come back a spoil all the fun... Originally Posted by JonR
-
In these days of Facebook I sometimes would like a like button. Like for this post. Thanks Reg. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Yeah, I don't think anyone was preaching an imbalanced approach... Originally Posted by JakeAcci
I think anybody who plays for a while discovers a few things-- both navigation systems (CST v. Chord Tones) are valid, and there's situations where one is more useful than the other...
-
Amen. Originally Posted by JonR
"modal jazz", "CST", and guitar fret patterns are three totally different things.
Can we maybe try and keep them separate??
(Probably not, I'm guessing...)
So to the OP:
My perspective was just that you do not learn to play the dorian scale simply by figuring out of which key the root of the chord is the second and playing the major scale in that key. ("Oh if you want to play Ab Dorian, just find F# major").
You must be able to instantly see the root, third, fifth, seventh, ninth etc of the underlying chord within the scale without going through any non-trivial thought process. If you can't do that, you don't know the scale yet.
One way is to have CAGED fingerings in your head for each mode that relate the scale tones to the chord tones. I imagine there might be others. I genuinely think this is worth discussing because alternative ways of visualising and organising this stuff would be interesting to understand; it's easy for each of us to think our own conception is the only one that really makes sense.
But yes, let's have a moratorium here on (a) whether learning "the modes" is useful at developmental stage x, (b) whether CST is a good account of jazz practice for some given value of "jazz" and (c) whether modal jazz is tennis without a net.
Last edited by Rich Cochrane; 04-18-2012 at 05:12 PM.
-
I started teaching in "67" if memory serves correctly, and I totally agree with what I have been reading as far as not force feeding your personal way or ways on your students, when it comes to Jazz improv.
Modes, in my opinion, as some others of you here may agree, are tools to know and use at your own discretion.
They are a simple part of music. Not music theory. Not Jazz theory.
One of my students that attended Berkley is now a friend of his current 'Mentor"..Pat Martino. You have heard Pat soloing on many tunes, and yes, he plays a lot of Minor runs, riffs, modes (if you listen for them) and other ideas besides his signature Minor "habit", and plays them quite quickly, as you are alarmingly well aware.
My former student, who refers to Mr. Martino as his friend and mentor, frequently travels with Pat on his gigs. Recently, in New York, he asked Pat (the BIG question) "what were you thinking about during that last solo?"
Mr. Martino, having just returned from the stage to the table and his lovely wife and my inquisitive former student, replied " I was not thinking about anything except the people who came here to hear me play! The notes just come to me..I really don't have to think about it anymore."
That is where we all need to be..New York.
-
Yes - I get the feeling the old "fret patterns with mode names" issue is lurking in the background, if not overtly stated. Originally Posted by gersdal
The problem, as always, is that the three concepts* do naturally overlap, and even the fret pattern issue is not totally worthless (although it would be good if we could all abandon it).
I don't much like CST either, but it has its place (I often invoke it myself). Just not where people often apply it.
*
1. MODE = type of sound or tonality, like a key, but different.
2. MODE = scale to fit a particular chord type (part of CST)
3. MODE = one of 7 fret patterns for a particular scale.
#1 is the historically correct and most useful sense (even in "modal jazz", which is very different from medieval modes).
#2 is sometimes useful, but less often than some people seem to think.
#3 should probably be binned right now; it's handy in some ways, but does a lot more harm than good.
The point about it is that it's a technical issue, not a theory issue. Fret patterns are a matter of guitar technique: where you put your fingers. They shouldn't be given names with a theoretical meaning.
And yes, I know that things like the traditional "C major scale 7th position" , or the so-called CAGED system, have irrelevant theoretical connotations. No system is perfect...
I think the problem with modes (as fret patterns) is that people haven't yet absorbed the concept as well as we (historically in general) have with the idea of the "C major scale" being just a collection of notes (ABCDEFG) without C necessarily being the keynote.
If we to use (say) "D dorian mode" as the name for a fret pattern, we need to accept fully that it has no necessary connection with "D dorian mode" in sense #1. We need to accept a D dorian mode sound can come equally well from an "E phrygian" or "F lydian" pattern, or any other pattern of what I (being an oldie) would call the "C major scale".
As long as that's understood, #3 is OK!
(Sorry if these points have been made - I haven't read the whole thread...)
-
Interesting...this very sentiment was stated in a Gary Burton masterclass I watched online yesterday. If you're not playing to/with/for the people in the audience, your performance will not be worth anything. I know I'm guilty of that...I'm still too busy worrying about making the changes and hitting the right notes! Originally Posted by DUBYA R M
-
Good luck, Jeff - with our tuning system (and guitars in general) a lot of those notes are already wrong and there's nothing you can do about it! Originally Posted by FatJeff
-
04-19-2012, 10:43 AM #97Nuff Said GuestYes, the audience, I've completely forgotten all about them. Originally Posted by FatJeff
They must be that one Man and his Dog in the corner.
Nuff
-
Nice quote, but sadly of no use to anyone learning jazz improvisation Originally Posted by DUBYA R M
.
Naturally, when one has Martino's experience, everything he's learned has become second nature, so he doesn't have to think about it. The question for the student - or anyone who has not reached that level - is: how do you get to that point?
Of course, I'm not suggesting he intended it as advice. Also, he might have been being polite: perhaps he had been thinking about his notes, but didn't want to get into a dull theoretical conversation at that point, given the company, and the fact he was offstage and relaxing.
After all, one wouldn't want to think that a top jazz musician was totally detached while playing: not thinking about the music at all! IOW, while all the technical aspects (scale choice etc) would be automatic, there ought to be some higher creative thinking going on.
Then again, when one is "in the zone", even if one is thinking hard at the time about what one is playing - or at least aware of how it's unfolding - one tends to forget it all immediately afterwards.
Improvisation is essentially "of the moment", after all. That's what "the zone" is all about. Sometimes you just catch that wave. One can be totally in control of what one is playing, but still be unable to talk about it afterwards, because it bypasses the memory faculty.
Again, none of this is any good to a student as advice: "Yeah, just play what you feel, maaan...."
-
Hey, you get him too! That guy gets around... (dog must be getting plenty of exercise). Originally Posted by Nuff Said
Yes, the audience, I've completely forgotten all about them.
They must be that one Man and his Dog in the corner.
Nuff
-
I think it's undeniable that any musical skill can become automatic with enough repetition. I really wouldn't doubt that Pat can play over his standard rep while thinking about the groceries he needs to pick up for the next day. Originally Posted by JonR
Nice quote, but sadly of no use to anyone learning jazz improvisation.
Naturally, when one has Martino's experience, everything he's learned has become second nature, so he doesn't have to think about it. The question for the student - or anyone who has not reached that level - is: how do you get to that point?
Of course, I'm not suggesting he intended it as advice. Also, he might have been being polite: perhaps he had been thinking about his notes, but didn't want to get into a dull theoretical conversation at that point, given the company, and the fact he was offstage and relaxing.
After all, one wouldn't want to think that a top jazz musician was totally detached while playing: not thinking about the music at all! IOW, while all the technical aspects (scale choice etc) would be automatic, there ought to be some higher creative thinking going on.
Then again, when one is "in the zone", even if one is thinking hard at the time about what one is playing - or at least aware of how it's unfolding - one tends to forget it all immediately afterwards.
Improvisation is essentially "of the moment", after all. That's what "the zone" is all about. Sometimes you just catch that wave. One can be totally in control of what one is playing, but still be unable to talk about it afterwards, because it bypasses the memory faculty.
Again, none of this is any good to a student as advice: "Yeah, just play what you feel, maaan...."
I experience this all the time when I'm with students and they need to take 10 seconds to go grab their notebook or something - I don't even realize it but my hands are on the guitar and I'm doing stuff and I'm completely unaware. It happens often.
I'm not at the level where I could play over an entire set of standards without consciously thinking about key centers or anything, but I definitely experience it over some of the tunes I know the best.
Honestly I think it's a really important point as advice - strive to be at the point where the technical and mechanical elements are automatic, and then, as a performer you are ready to communicate something organic to the listener. That's how I see it, I just think few people get there. It takes a lot of work. And being practical, it's less likely to happen over something difficult like 26-2 in 7/4 or something.
Another thing is that guys like Pat are doing what, a few hundred shows a year for the past x years? Even issues of thematic development become automatic.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions