-
Not disagreeing with you in general, but I think that classical/jazz distinction is exaggerated.
Originally Posted by Jonah
We tend to associate complex theory with classical music - especially as a prerequisite to playing or composing it - for two reasons: (a) the music is complicated, (b) the music is distant from us culturally. IOW, it's like a foreign language, where learning to speak it requires an intimate knowledge of the grammar, in order not to make foolish mistakes; because - at this remove from its "live" period - we're no longer in a position to be able to judge the correctness of the music purely by ear.
Jazz is a living music - even its dead subgenres (swing, bebop, etc) remain fairly familiar thanks to recordings. It's easier to know when we hear a faux pas. Even so, the more distant the music gets from the present (such as those vintage subgenres), the less familiar we are with it as a "live spoken" language, the more we need good theoretical principles in order to be able to recreate it properly.
Of course, there's another difference with jazz (leaving aside the difficulties of notating swing, and the resulting confusion over rhythm), which is that jazz is - arguably - all about constant change, treating the past with a healthy disrespect; using the language to say what we want, today, not to emulate what people were saying 60-70 years ago.
Maybe 200 years down the line, musicians will be treating (say) Thelonius Monk scores with the same sacred reverence we treat Mozart or Beethoven scores today. We'd regard that as hilarious now, but things will be different 200 years from now.
IOW - getting back OT - the idea of applying CST (non-functional harmony) to pre-CST functional music might seem a category error to some (and I'd include myself in that), but it can also be seen as a natural jazz response to its past: to refresh those old tunes with a new, revolutionary perspective.
If you want to play bebop "properly" - ie sound like an authentic bebop musician - then you would ignore CST as pointless, even a destructive influence; you would instead be looking (as far as possible) at the way they thought then. But who wants to sound like a jazz musician from the 1940s - except maybe as part of the educational process? Why not sound like a jazz musician from today?Last edited by JonR; 06-02-2015 at 07:22 AM.
-
06-02-2015 07:20 AM
-
I have never got into CST. I don't like scales very much! That Aebersold scale syllabus reminds me of Latin grammar or something. Probably got fed up with scales when I had to learn them all for classical guitar way back when. Major scales are ok though, I still practise them sometimes. I mainly get by with arpeggios, chord tones, passing notes, using my ears, and nicking stuff from the players I like!
Once I investigated the whole 'play Ab melodic minor scale to get the G7alt notes' thing (I've probably got the name of that scale wrong!). All I discovered from that was all the same notes I was already using for that chord, except I already had them organised into melodic cells, patterns, phrases etc. which the scale did not give me.
Not saying CST is no good, just that for me there seemed to be easier ways to get where I wanted to be.
Maybe I'll look into it one day if I get into the more advanced stuff. Not enough hours in the day yet!
-
Jay, you really should probably check this stuff out before you knock it like this. It's pretty clear you don't really know what it is. Originally Posted by targuit
-
06-02-2015, 08:08 AM #54destinytot Guest
I find CST helpful for preparing and internalising tunes, but I don't want to hear scales when I'm trying to make the changes.
Add: Love Morten Faerestrand's observations @6m24secs here
Last edited by destinytot; 06-02-2015 at 08:25 AM. Reason: addition
-
Jeff - Love you, man, but sometimes you say the silliest things! First, I know music theory including classical music - you know, by composers like Benjamin Britten and others who actually read music and know what they are talking about. As do I. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Second, given that you feel CST is some revolutionary new insight into improvisation and composition, please succinctly but articulately state exactly how CST would provide a player/ composer/ musician greater insight into creating a melody or harmony beyond the twelve steps of the Western scale here on planet earth. What exactly do you gain by spending time playing the modal scales? I could help you there. Sit at a piano and play the white keys. Each time start on the next key up. D dorian, etc.... No doubt you will be composing a symphony any day now.
I am just joking, if a bit crudely.
Honest, Jeff, I just do not see how thinking about modes in the moment of improvising makes you a better player if you have good ears. Another hint - take the regular scales and lower or raise certain intervals by a half step. I need something deeper than this.
-
Important things to note:
The folks who developed the whole idea of CST...learned the old way. They still knew where their thirds and sevenths were, and that not all notes in a scale were "equal."
I've seen charts where the blowing section "chord" will say "E phyrgian dominant" and then span 8 bars.
Music out there exists that using CST makes simpler. If you don't like that music, or play that music, then there's not much for you in there...but some folks DO like it, and DO play it.
-
I also agree with you in general...Not disagreeing with you in general, but I think that classical/jazz distinction is exaggerated.
We tend to associate complex theory with classical music - especially as a prerequisite to playing or composing it - for two reasons: (a) the music is complicated, (b) the music is distant from us culturally. IOW, it's like a foreign language, where learning to speak it requires an intimate knowledge of the grammar, in order not to make foolish mistakes; because - at this remove from its "live" period - we're no longer in a position to be able to judge the correctness of the music purely by ear.
Jazz is a living music - even its dead subgenres (swing, bebop, etc) remain fairly familiar thanks to recordings. It's easier to know when we hear a faux pas. Even so, the more distant the music gets from the present (such as those vintage subgenres), the less familiar we are with it as a "live spoken" language, the more we need good theoretical principles in order to be able to recreate it properly.
Of course, there's another difference with jazz (leaving aside the difficulties of notating swing, and the resulting confusion over rhythm), which is that jazz is - arguably - all about constant change, treating the past with a healthy disrespect; using the language to say what we want, today, not to emulate what people were saying 60-70 years ago.
Maybe 200 years down the line, musicians will be treating (say) Thelonius Monk scores with the same sacred reverence we treat Mozart or Beethoven scores today. We'd regard that as hilarious now, but things will be different 200 years from now.
but I want to accant one point.. in calssical from early middle centuries theory was an independant and quite self-sufficient part of musical mentality.. in some periods it was even more important than practice)))
I mean for musician it was natural to correspond his ideas with theoretical cathegories.
Well there is a goold sample.. HIPP in classical music... after alsmost a century they developed their own approach which combines revernce to style to historical evidence and today living means of musical expression... complex processIOW - getting back OT - the idea of applying CST (non-functional harmony) to pre-CST functional music might seem a category error to some (and I'd include myself in that), but it can also be seen as a natural jazz response to its past: to refresh those old tunes with a new, revolutionary perspective.
If you want to play bebop "properly" - ie sound like an authentic bebop musician - then you would ignore CST as pointless, even a destructive influence; you would instead be looking (as far as possible) at the way they thought then. But who wants to sound like a jazz musician from the 1940s - except maybe as part of the educational process? Why not sound like a jazz musician from today?
With jazz it's problematic IMHO - I am not sure it can really survive such an approach without becoming a parody...
and the main reason is the same: no written tradition no theory as part of musical aesthetics...
I mean part of classical thinking was it was meant to be put down and then reproduced from written text... the approach could change in different period but this idea has always been there more or less from Boetius and Guido di Pomposa
Jazz' most essential feature that 'it's played it's gone - what do we have next?'
So maybe they will study Monk's score in 200 years but I am sure they will learn jazz from it... some different music maybe.. compositional style based on 'jazzy' harmonies.
You know it's like classical players often think that to play jazz is playing 'jazzy arrangements'Last edited by Jonah; 06-02-2015 at 08:55 AM.
-
The best way to think about it for me is that a musical line weaves its way over time, and chords come and go framing the notes.
Again, for me, the notion of shifting scales with every chord, more or less, puts huge roadblocks in the way of developing great linear lines.
When there are few chord changes, as in modal jazz, the use of more exotic scales may be useful.
CST seems to help analyze and explain, but not necessarily to play jazz, especially bebop.
-
06-02-2015, 09:01 AM #59destinytot GuestI enjoy your posts, Jonah, but I'm finding it difficult to decipher the language here. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
targuit,Second, given that you feel CST is some revolutionary new insight into improvisation and composition, please succinctly but articulately state exactly how CST would provide a player/ composer/ musician greater insight into creating a melody or harmony beyond the twelve steps of the Western scale here on planet earth.
music is not just sound...
lots of languages use the same vocals which...
I am sure that CST can lead (and actually to some extent already did) to new music derived of the same 12 tones. Probably out of jazz - it depends...
First of all pre-functional music - like Machaut and others did phantastic things operating on the level of scales only..What exactly do you gain by spending time playing the modal scales? I could help you there. Sit at a piano and play the white keys. Each time start on the next key up. D dorian, etc.... No doubt you will be composing a symphony any day now. I am just joking, if a bit crudely.
And secondly.. one can say the same about functionality: ok play you triads starting from C and see if you ever can compose a good polyphonic chanson in ars nova style...Last edited by Jonah; 06-02-2015 at 09:26 AM.
-
Jay, the fact that you think CST is a get rich quick scheme that somehow promises to help you make "better musician" tells me you haven't looked into it. Originally Posted by targuit
Jeff - Love you, man, but sometimes you say the silliest things! First, I know music theory including classical music - you know, by composers like Benjamin Britten and others who actually read music and know what they are talking about. As do I.
Second, given that you feel CST is some revolutionary new insight into improvisation and composition, please succinctly but articulately state exactly how CST would provide a player/ composer/ musician greater insight into creating a melody or harmony beyond the twelve steps of the Western scale here on planet earth. What exactly do you gain by spending time playing the modal scales? I could help you there. Sit at a piano and play the white keys. Each time start on the next key up. D dorian, etc.... No doubt you will be composing a symphony any day now. I am just joking, if a bit crudely.
Honest, Jeff, I just do not see how thinking about modes in the moment of improvising makes you a better player if you have good ears. Another hint - take the regular scales and lower or raise certain intervals by a half step. I need something deeper than this.
And I won't address your silly backhanded "actually read music" line, I do too.
Here's a tune I think you'll enjoy--"Pee Wee," as recorded by Miles' quintet.
This is a tough tune to play by ear. The harmony is largely non-functional, in the traditional sense, the chords are not standard nor do they move in standard ways. Even the form is weird (21 bars)
CST is just another way to analyze. It's a roadmap. It prescribes nothing, promises nothing. But it can be a way to actually simplify a tune like this.
-
Sorry... I am not native speaker.. and probably some misprints.
Originally Posted by Jonah 
Well there is a goold sample.. HIPP in classical music... after alsmost a century they developed their own approach which combines revernce to style to historical evidence and today living means of musical expression... complex process
I enjoy your posts, Jonah, but I'm finding it difficult to decipher the language here.
HIPP is historically informed performance practice.
Their first attempts at the beginning of the 20th century were often naive and for long time it was more of a historical research than musical performance... but now after a few generations of players these ideas bacame so natural that now we have players lwho do not think much any more if they articulate like it was proper historically - they just play music again.
But I am sure that they do it differently than it was in historical periods...
the only way to play music authentically is to play it today -
When we approach 'dead' styles of music I always think about it.. about the fact that it was 'today's music' for those people and that it would be unfare if I play it as 'yesterday's music'.. it would kill the very nature of music...
Paradox we have to deal with...
So if we find pleasure in playing old styles we should find the way to make them our natural language.. probably we will have to start from awkward imitation but step by step we can get into it and sooner or later we can come to the point that someone says: sounds like old bop playing but at the same time so fresh and modern...
maybe...Last edited by Jonah; 06-02-2015 at 09:27 AM.
-
"see if you ever can compose a good polyphonic chanson in ars nova style..."
I can't ever imagine wanting to!!
-
06-02-2015, 09:31 AM #64destinytot Guestvowels (sorry!)lots of languages use the same vocals
-
thanks)vowels (sorry!)
I tried to say all the speech sounds - vowels and consonants... but I am not sure there's single word for it in English
-
well... targuit tries to imagine composing symphony with CST"see if you ever can compose a good polyphonic chanson in ars nova style..."
I can't ever imagine wanting to!!
-
Excellent point. Really good. In the same way the people who invented free music had spent years playing commercial music (Derek Bailey earned his money as a rhythm guitar in a dance band.) After 5 years of doing that job I really *get* why Bailey was keen to do something completely different (in fact trad/swing and free improv players are often the same guys haha.) Anyway, I digress... Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
When Miles started playing modal music it was in reaction to the strictures of years of him playing 32 bar AABA tin pan alley functional harmony. His approach had been primarily melodic for years, to my ears, the modal thing just allowed him to go further with it, and to some extent 'frame it' in a neat way.
These days many people, especially horn players, compose music using CST as a starting point. I don't feel there's anything wrong with that I guess but understanding functional harmony, I feel, is important to stop people writing really (for me) boring music, even if you don't actually choose to use it in your compositions. I think it teaches balance, proportion and form. Also if you write music with essentially no harmony, for my tastes, I want to hear some compelling melodic lines or an amazing groove. Others differ in tastes.
Also you have to understand what functional harmony is in order to understand what non-functional harmony is.
Anyway non functional harmony is something that has existed in jazz for a lot longer than many musicians realise. Take the middle 8 of Douce Ambience for example, where Django writes a melody based on Ab dorian going to A dorian (the A section is Gm). And vamps were about right from the beginning - in a way by rejecting the AABA functional harmony thing, you could say Miles was actually trying to get to the essence of jazz, which we hear in some earlier music, for example, the Bechet version of Joshua fit the Battle of Jericho - improvisation on essentially static harmony, not to mention all the endless turnarounds, Rocking in Rhythm and King Porter Stomp, where the vertical harmonic aspect was essentially immaterial and the melodic, rhythmic and timbral aspects of the improvisation of primary importance. No wonder early jazz specialists often have some interest in free music, or vice versa...
As an example one tune I play is a Smooth One an AABA tune from the swing era with a repeated bass line/chord progression that goes Bm7b5 Bbm7 F/A F7. I play this tune with a really great bebop improvisor but he finds this tune an absolute headache because non of the standard vocabulary he plays fits easily over it (I mean, he still sounds great on it if you ask me, but this is what he said.) If you use a pre-bop concept to play on it, you essentially ignore the harmony and solo in F mixolydian/blues, but of course you don't get the bebop thing.
Needless to say jazz went back to this approach in the 60s. The bass line in It's About That Time is a borrowing from motown/soul music and itself is clearly descended from the swing vamps of the 30s as swing (Charlie Christian)-->jump blues-->R&B-->soul music. So Miles was really tapping into this current in black popular music when he did this.
On the other hand, Pat Metheny, for example, had a clearly stated mission to take electric jazz/fusion away from the whole vamp thing in the '70s... And he did this largely using functional triadic harmony with a bit of the Baby Boomer modal interchange thing.
So I see it as a constant tension in jazz between the niceties of form and harmony and a desire to be free of them, to play free phrases and melody away from the form. I think it's good to know both.
TL;DR functional harmony was never the only game in town.
-
Man all the complaints etc... are generally by those who don't know what Chord ScalesTheory is... And what follows typical guitarist practice... become an expert at one liner understanding, skip the work and move on.
Chord scale theory is not about using scales.... Scales are just a product of the theory, just as chord tones and extensions are.
Chord Scale Theory is just a collection of jazz common practice... what jazz musician play, that's the common practice. The theory part is describing what they play... with use of.... "Relationships between Chords and Scales"... all functioning in a relationship to a Tonal Center.... I'll say it again.... with relationship to a "TONAL CENTER".
Scales, Modes voice leading, voicing etc... are not theory... they're just realizations of playing music.... they're just a choice of what to play... the simple versions, again common practice. Generally most believe they're the right approach to playing because they don't understand music. They understand the surface of music... all the one liners etc... the simple approach... one choice etc...
The Scale could just as easy be Arpeggios, or Chord Tones and Extensions.
Your suppose to already have an understanding of Functional Harmony.
The use of Chord scale also deals with potential possible TONAL POSSIBILITIES. You know like when you perform Jazz in the style of Jazz.... maybe not play the same thing over and over... maybe improvise.
The big difference with use or descriptions of use with chromatic notes.... you can actually have organization with their use, they can also have a tonal reference...
The only problem with being aware of CST is.... you might actually have to put some time into actually learning what it is, and also have an understanding what Functional Harmony is.... and maybe even open your ears and brain a little to hear and see that there is more that one approach to hearing music.
But hey I understand.... I'm also Lazy.
Just for the record, I studied with Nettles at Berklee in the early 70's... and the term CST was already being taught, believe it had been used for a while. If you get into composing/arranging you need to become aware of this very basic concept of relationships between chords and scales,(complete note collections), with relationships to possible tonalities.
The possibilities of more than one tonal center.
And yea I grew up playing with reference to... the melody, basic chord tones, blue notes, extensions and chromatics with all the typical embellishments... nothings changes, I can still play with that approach... but I don't have to.
-
Might sound a bit like Steve Reich? Reich was turned onto the modal trance thing by listening to Trane (Reich was a jazz drummer before he was a composer.) Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Jeff - I will concede that if the chart has such a vague instruction as to play eight measures in "Eb Phrygian dominant" (not sure just what you intend with the addition of the term "dominant" here), then knowing what intervals in Eb constitute the Phrygian mode would be important. But in truth I would be listening to the rest of the band including the piano or other comping voice and the bass for my cues. I can't 'think' Phyrgian. I can hear it better.
I did like that Miles Davis tune Pee Wee that you referenced. However, I would like to have seen the chart from which they worked on it. I doubt that was "improvised" but rather written out, though you can correct me if I am wrong. I would far prefer to play this type of music off a notated score than be instructed to "play Phrygian here...".Last edited by targuit; 06-02-2015 at 10:15 AM.
-
Well, Phrygian dominant is a specific sound.
Did you check out "Pee Wee?" Honestly, right, you'd need to have a damn good ear to go into that one cold.
-
CST is a good way to understand how chords and scales relateto the guitar fingerboard.
Having that as a foundation enables you to superimpose ormix any other concept with it
and still be able to relate it to your grasp ofthe finger board without having to think about it.
-
Yeah, getting a bit off topic there. But I was addressing the use of CST as a compositional tool. AFAIK CST doesn't really cover the functional relationships of chords. If this is because I don't really have a through grasp of the theory, I would say that most of the musicians I play with seem to have the same basic conception of CST as I do... So mainstream CST as understood by non-1970s-Berklee graduates... ;-) I am playing with a Berklee graduate tomorrow, be interesting see what he says about the current pedagogy.... Originally Posted by Reg
EDIT: I'm guessing as you mention you already need an undersanding of functional harmony to get the most from CST, I guess not...
BTW, Reg, have you ever tried to analyse a pre bebop era jazz solo using CST? Perhaps something by Coleman Hawkins? If so I would be very interested in what you found. I have certainly found things that can be understood using CST in this era of music.
It is significant for several reasons. I think we can probably agree that CST theory was not in conscious use during the 30s, although some players may have been aware of things like the whole tone scale and obviously major/minor harmony. So it is interesting that CST sounds are still in use this far back.
On the other hand, it raises the interesting question - if CST is a reasonably good representation of what notes work with what harmonies (and as far as my knowledge goes, it seems to do a pretty good job, with some significant reservations) what is its role in jazz pedagogy? Which takes us back to the OP.
Incidentally Levine puts the start of the scalar era of jazz at some point in the 60s. Interesting thing is Barry Harris teaches a scalar approach that is basically totally compatible with the modern CST theory, even though the way he couches the terminology is different.Last edited by christianm77; 06-02-2015 at 10:22 AM.
-
I was playing along to the recording, though I would prefer to read a notated score. I do get your point here, however.
In what way is "Phrygian dominant" different from just Phrygian? I am stumped on this one.Last edited by targuit; 06-02-2015 at 10:20 AM.
-
Catalogue of scale derived extensions addressing G7.
Scales are just arpeggios contextualized.
Major:
G B D F A C E
w/o major 3rd:
G Bb D F A C E
G Bb D F A C Eb
G Bb D F Ab C Eb
G Bb Db F Ab C Eb
Melodic Minor:
G B D F A C# E
G B D F A C Eb
G B F Bb Eb Ab Db
w/o major 3rd:
G Bb D F Ab C E
G Bb Db F A C Eb
Harmonic Major:
G B D F Ab C E
G B F Bb Eb Ab D
w/o major 3rd:
G Bb Db F A C E
Harmonic Minor:
G B D F Ab C Eb
w/o major 3rd:
G Bb Db F Ab C Eb
G Bb D F A C# E
Whole Tone:
G B D# F A C#
Diminished:
G B D F Ab Db Bb Eb (not sure of the best way to show the extensions)
No one has ever told me that this scale has to go with that chord.
I view the study of note collections as a more manageable path to absorb the intervallic details of the chromatic scale.
In other words, it is an ear training exercise.
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos