Chief criticisms - Chord Scale Theory

[Reg]

"Eb Phrygian dominant" yea that's part of the problem... you should understand what the possible implications of just what that could mean.
I do see charts all the time where terms like "Eb Phrygian" or Phry. Dom. are used and many times that implies a very standard modal harmonic functional montuno like harmonic feel... with standard functional harmonic movement... just not Maj/Min functional movement. It's not just 5th mode of MM. could very also be Just standard use of Phrygian but with a Dominate reference... Key of "C"... E7susb9 ... you would need to be able to recognize what the implication was from a quick analysis of chart or music... again standard jazz practice.

[Reg]

Hey bako... there are standard practice guidelines of which possible scales work with chords derived from jazz tunes.
The chromatic results just become organized. They're not etched in stone, just example of what jazz players have used over the years etc...

And of course the term scales is just a simple means of describing the complete note collections.... not a description of how to play or use.

[mr. beaumont]

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.

Phrygian with a major 3rd.

Don't play "Flamenco Sketches" without it

As Reg said, it's not just a scale...it's a whole feel. If you see "Phrygian Dominant" you can expect that "Spanish Tinge."

[christianm77]

So in fact - it seems to me most on this forum are broad agreement no?

Does anyone disagree with these statements
1) You need to learn functional harmony, including common progressions, how they work, practicing chord tone and passing tones etc.
2) CST expands the range of possibilities available just using 1) to incorporate other, interesting harmonic sounds.

My feeling:
Note choice is not terribly important.

It's in the mix, but it's not a deal breaker if someone's harmony is a little staid.

I strongly feel that the important elements of jazz are Rhythm, Melody, maybe Timbre for some styles, Interaction, Listening, Touch, Tone, Dynamics, Energy, Form. The role of harmony for me is subservient to these elements - while your aim as a jazz improvisor to be able to solo effortlessly through changes and reference them in your line - no mean feat, but entirely possible without CST - this is so that you are able to freely express yourself with important elements. If you chuck out harmony (as Miles did) you no longer have to contend with the distraction/obstacle of European harmony.

It is manifestly obvious from the recorded history of the music that if a musician plays a great melody with great time, tone and energy using boring notes (or even totally random seeming ones) they will sound great. Even careful examination of the modern day masters shows this... If you can add interesting note choices to all the other factors, so be it. You can transcribe and analyse not choices in other players work and rationalise it in what ever way that allows you to make peace with whatever belief system you subscribe to.

Mike Brecker, for example, could play anything over anything, out of key, whatever, perhaps even things he couldn't really hear, because all the other elements were present in his playing. I'm sure there is some CST enthusiast who can come out with an explanation for everything Mike Brecker ever played, but that's scholarship, not music making.

Educationally, all CST can offer is creative note choice options for a musician who already sounds great with the basic material.

EDIT: I am talking about imporivising over changes here, as opposed to arranging, composition etc.

[mr. beaumont]

I'm not sure it even gives new options in note choices.

To me, it's just a simplification thing...a way to organize sounds, create relationships where it might not look like there are any, if you're using a strict functional harmony lens. The same 12 notes are available.

Certainly, you do all of this long enough, and the lines blur. You hear the relationships over and over, you can tell what a chart suggests just by looking at it. Becomes simply, "What gets you from point A to B?" stuff like that. I'm not there yet. I need to organize my thoughts before jumping in.

[christianm77]

Phrygian with a major 3rd.

Don't play "Flamenco Sketches" without it

As Reg said, it's not just a scale...it's a whole feel. If you see "Phrygian Dominant" you can expect that "Spanish Tinge."

It's a lovely sound. Well worth playing around with. Try a natural 7th as well.

[christianm77]

"see if you ever can compose a good polyphonic chanson in ars nova style..."

I can't ever imagine wanting to!!

God help me I have actually done this. I based it on the melody of My Romance as the color for the isorhythmic tenor part.

I couldn't say if it was any good, but it was an interesting exercise.

[monk]

To paraphrase Metheny,

There's no need to paraphrase Metheny when you can go straight to the horse's mouth.



"The one beef I have with the "chord scale movement" is that it sort of suggests all seven notes are equally cool, when in fact that's really not the case. There really are usually four notes you want to land on that are the really, really, good ones. Then there are the others you want to get through and some you barely want to touch them. That degree of weight thing is usually not discussed because it is usually presented in the form of modal thinking rather than voice leading. My advice to people is yes, learn the chord scales but also make sure you can solo using just the chord tones. A big chunk of early jazz history was largely improvising using chord tones and improvising around the melody. Those are two valuable entry points."---Pat Metheny, interview in Fingerstyle Guitar magazine #58.

[GuyBoden]

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.

Reg to the rescue once again.

"Chord Scale Theory by Barrie Nettles and Richard Graf" is a good read and will clarify most CST.

[JonR]

So in fact - it seems to me most on this forum are broad agreement no?

Does anyone disagree with these statements
1) You need to learn functional harmony, including common progressions, how they work, practicing chord tone and passing tones etc.

Agree.

2) CST expands the range of possibilities available just using 1) to incorporate other, interesting harmonic sounds.

That would be my interpretation - although I can see that "interesting harmonic sounds" might need more explication.

I'd also regard it as an alternative way of viewing - or just classifying - note choices at any point.

I personally don't find it of any help in functional harmony - where chords are linked in tonal progressions. It just seems like a load of superfluous labels in that context, new words for old ideas. (Although I do accept that new labels can often encourage new thinking, different perspectives.)

But for any jazz from 1960s on, I'd say an understanding of CST is essential - if only as an important analytical tool.

I strongly feel that the important elements of jazz are Rhythm, Melody, maybe Timbre for some styles, Interaction, Listening, Touch, Tone, Dynamics, Energy, Form. The role of harmony for me is subservient to these elements -

I agree. FWIW

while your aim as a jazz improvisor to be able to solo effortlessly through changes and reference them in your line - no mean feat, but entirely possible without CST - this is so that you are able to freely express yourself with important elements. If you chuck out harmony (as Miles did) you no longer have to contend with the distraction/obstacle of European harmony.

I wouldn't say Miles "chucked out" harmony. I'd prefer to say he knocked it down, to see if the pieces could be reassembled in a looser, less fixed way. There is still harmony in modal jazz, just of a different kind. In fact - although I agree with your priorities - I see the whole sound of modal jazz as largely dependent on its harmonic foundation - those open quartal voicings, the static feel.

And as you said before, he was inspired by older African-American forms too - "pre-functional", if we can all it that, the more folksy simplicity of spirituals, the one chord grooves of gospel (as well as African music itself). Plus the quartal harmonies Bill Evans brought from impressionism.

Educationally, all CST can offer is creative note choice options for a musician who already sounds great with the basic material.

Even that is debatable, IMO.
But that's not to dismiss CST at all. The fact that it offers nothing new in terms of note choice (and it really doesn't, seeing as all 12 notes always were available at all times - in the hierarchy outlined in Pat Metheny's quote above) is beside the point. It's an alternative perspective, a way of trying to see beyond the old functional straitjacket, the corralling of notes into linear voice-leading according to certain classically-derived habits. IOW, not alternative note choices, but alternative ways of thinking about the (old) note choices - in particular, of course, new ways of hearing them. And then - when it comes to composition - new ways of organising them

[Hep To The Jive]

So in fact - it seems to me most on this forum are broad agreement no?

Does anyone disagree with these statements
1) You need to learn functional harmony, including common progressions, how they work, practicing chord tone and passing tones etc.
2) CST expands the range of possibilities available just using 1) to incorporate other, interesting harmonic sounds.

My feeling:
Note choice is not terribly important.

It's in the mix, but it's not a deal breaker if someone's harmony is a little staid.

I strongly feel that the important elements of jazz are Rhythm, Melody, maybe Timbre for some styles, Interaction, Listening, Touch, Tone, Dynamics, Energy, Form. The role of harmony for me is subservient to these elements - while your aim as a jazz improvisor to be able to solo effortlessly through changes and reference them in your line - no mean feat, but entirely possible without CST - this is so that you are able to freely express yourself with important elements. If you chuck out harmony (as Miles did) you no longer have to contend with the distraction/obstacle of European harmony.

It is manifestly obvious from the recorded history of the music that if a musician plays a great melody with great time, tone and energy using boring notes (or even totally random seeming ones) they will sound great. Even careful examination of the modern day masters shows this... If you can add interesting note choices to all the other factors, so be it. You can transcribe and analyse not choices in other players work and rationalise it in what ever way that allows you to make peace with whatever belief system you subscribe to.

Mike Brecker, for example, could play anything over anything, out of key, whatever, perhaps even things he couldn't really hear, because all the other elements were present in his playing. I'm sure there is some CST enthusiast who can come out with an explanation for everything Mike Brecker ever played, but that's scholarship, not music making.

Educationally, all CST can offer is creative note choice options for a musician who already sounds great with the basic material.

EDIT: I am talking about imporivising over changes here, as opposed to arranging, composition etc.

I completely agree with this. Note choice is not terribly important should be a mantra for any aspiring jazzman. I wonder if its mostly us rooted in trad swing players who really understand that? Thats being said, if you figure out your way over changes in a nice musical way, based either on CST or chord tones, its a huge bonus for any player.

[christianm77]

There's no need to paraphrase Metheny when you can go straight to the horse's mouth.



"The one beef I have with the "chord scale movement" is that it sort of suggests all seven notes are equally cool, when in fact that's really not the case. There really are usually four notes you want to land on that are the really, really, good ones. Then there are the others you want to get through and some you barely want to touch them. That degree of weight thing is usually not discussed because it is usually presented in the form of modal thinking rather than voice leading. My advice to people is yes, learn the chord scales but also make sure you can solo using just the chord tones. A big chunk of early jazz history was largely improvising using chord tones and improvising around the melody. Those are two valuable entry points."---Pat Metheny, interview in Fingerstyle Guitar magazine #58.

I agree with Pat Metheny. :-) I'm sure everyone will be relieved to hear this :-)

In fact, I would recommend any one interested in jazz to start learning with early jazz for that reason, although those techniques work equally well for any style, and most of the young 'uns aren't much for Louis and Lester when they've just heard their first Holdsworth record. Dave Cliff said something very similar to me in my first ever jazz lesson. Needless to say I ignored him because I was a 18 year old idiot, and listened to the piano teacher who taught me to play modes on Little Sunflower.

[christianm77]

I completely agree with this. Note choice is not terribly important should be a mantra for any aspiring jazzman. I wonder if its mostly us rooted in trad swing players who really understand that? Thats being said, if you figure out your way over changes in a nice musical way, based either on CST or chord tones, its a huge bonus for any player.

Well you have to play the changes really clearly in early jazz, and melodic variation is an even better technique. You can't get away with noodling, your playing has to have corners and really relate to the beat. Everyone can hear right away when you hit a clam.

I think it's been great for my playing. Now I'm getting more into doing postbop and fusion stuff again after a around 5 years of not playing anything later than about 1950, and I feel empowered, and I have grown as a player, more disciplined, more attentive to detail.

I'm not being funny, but when I started my list of deps was non existent. I knew loads of accomplished modern players, some of the best players in the country, but none of them would have been able to cut it on a swing gig. The guys who could would always be busy. I'm not saying we were great players - far from it - but the gig is very prescriptive to a degree that straight-ahead players might not fully grasp.

Now, lots of talented young players are getting into this stuff and doing it well, because it's a source of work.

There are many more places to hide in later music. I say this as someone who was playing post bop and fusion before I started playing early jazz.

When I started doing swing I found it so difficult to play major and minor triads, simple 6th arpeggios instead of extensions and so on. Every solo was a battle, I played really rather poorly because I was always thinking. But it got better, and easier. It was such a challenge. The hardest thing I have done, actually. Giant Steps is easy by comparison.

Now I feel I have a foundation to build on again...

EDIT: I'm not saying you have to play early jazz to develop this skill set, but it's a good way to advance your skills and make some money :-)

[Dana]

I'm a Berklee graduate. The following are just my impressions and opinions.


When I was there, we learned chord scale theory. Gary Burton was dean at the time. I think he was responsible for a majority of the school curriculum. This video of him teaching is pretty much how we were taught. Also, we did a lot of jazz band arranging, which they taught using chord scale theory.

If you've ever watched this video all the way through, you'll notice Gary never mentions using chord tones or approaches, just chord scales. At around 10:30 in the video he talks about how to practice scales for 'instant recall'.


Now, this is just my opinion. Gary Burton has perfect pitch, and was a musical prodigy. Perhaps for this reason he was able to quickly 'memorize' chord scales and improvise on them in various ways very quickly. Again, I don't know, it's just a guess. All I know is that for me, that approach wasn't very effective.


In recent years I've been using Jerry Bergonzi's approach, playing chord scales over a tune starting and ending on specific notes. It's hard, and has really shown me gaps in my knowledge.

[christianm77]

I'm a Berklee graduate. The following are just my impressions and opinions.


When I was there, we learned chord scale theory. Gary Burton was dean at the time. I think he was responsible for a majority of the school curriculum. This video of him teaching is pretty much how we were taught. Also, we did a lot of jazz band arranging, which they taught using chord scale theory.

If you've ever watched this video all the way through, you'll notice Gary never mentions using chord tones or approaches, just chord scales. At around 10:30 in the video he talks about how to practice scales for 'instant recall'.


Now, this is just my opinion. Gary Burton has perfect pitch, and was a musical prodigy. Perhaps for this reason he was able to quickly 'memorize' chord scales and improvise on them in various ways very quickly. Again, I don't know, it's just a guess. All I know is that for me, that approach wasn't very effective.


In recent years I've been using Jerry Bergonzi's approach, playing chord scales over a tune starting and ending on specific notes. It's hard, and has really shown me gaps in my knowledge.

Burton can play the shit out of bebop. I wonder how he learned? Listening to Milt Jackson and copying him, maybe?

I don't mean to erect a CST straw man here. I think Burton and other musicians of the same generation are products of their age. They played *lots* of gigs. I suppose they assumed by the time you get to Berklee you might know the basics already :-) But the world has changed, and needless to say we are not all musical prodigies...

There's not really much of a concept with the stuff I'm talking about beyond, learn lots of songs, transcribe solos, play melodies, learn where the chord tones are. That's not a 'concept' per se.

[Dana]

Burton can play the shit out of bebop. I wonder how he learned? Listening to Milt Jackson and copying him, maybe?

At 2:07 he tells the class he never transcribed because he had perfect pitch.

I suppose they assumed by the time you get to Berklee you might know the basics already :-)

No, they expect that at all. They figured you came there because there were things you didn't know. Define basics. One man's basics is another man's advanced theory.

But the world has changed, and needless to say we are not all musical prodigies...

When in the history of mankind was everyone a musical prodigy?

[GuyBoden]

I'm a Berklee graduate. The following are just my impressions and opinions.


When I was there, we learned chord scale theory. Gary Burton was dean at the time. I think he was responsible for a majority of the school curriculum. This video of him teaching is pretty much how we were taught. Also, we did a lot of jazz band arranging, which they taught using chord scale theory.

If you've ever watched this video all the way through, you'll notice Gary never mentions using chord tones or approaches, just chord scales. At around 10:30 in the video he talks about how to practice scales for 'instant recall'.


Now, this is just my opinion. Gary Burton has perfect pitch, and was a musical prodigy. Perhaps for this reason he was able to quickly 'memorize' chord scales and improvise on them in various ways very quickly. Again, I don't know, it's just a guess. All I know is that for me, that approach wasn't very effective.


In recent years I've been using Jerry Bergonzi's approach, playing chord scales over a tune starting and ending on specific notes. It's hard, and has really shown me gaps in my knowledge.

My CST is out of date too, but I thought I'd mention that Gary Burton mentions using Chord Tones and Key centres in his recent online Jazz improv courses. All useful stuff.

[christianm77]

At 2:07 he tells the class he never transcribed because he had perfect pitch.



No, they didn't expect you to be a master at Berklee. They figured you came there because there were things you didn't know. Define basics.



When in the history of mankind was everyone a musical prodigy?

A caveat - hadn't actually watched the video. I am now. Burton's very first point is significant. probably won't watch the whole thing, TBH.

Anyway, I whizzed onto the bit you mentioned. Interesting. I guess not then. But Burton can play phrases and they sound like jazz (is that the most backhanded compliment ever hahaha). I have some friends who play jazz who have perfect pitch, so I'll ask them about it with reference to transcription if they aren't too self conscious about it.

So maybe a 'concept' in addition to a discerning musical ear, can indeed lead to music....

This reminds me of what Mike Longo said - he is against transcribed material being regurgitated in solos, and regards transcription as purely ear training. From this point of view, Burton's statement makes perfect sense.

If you have good pitch awareness, it becomes like - 'I hear this note, I will play it'. Perhaps chord tone practice is therefore not necessary. You will play those notes because you can already hear them. In this case you need CST to open up your perception.

On the other hand the guitar is a less logical instrument than the vibraphone. I had a girlfriend who had perfect pitch, a consummate pianist. She had great trouble puzzling out how to play melodies and sight read etc on the guitar even though she could play fingerstyle stuff well. I think you do kind of need to go through the shapes phase.

[Jonah]

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.)

or Philip Glass..

[fumblefingers]

Um. Given that he plays with 4 mallets it seems likely that he'll hit a chord tone now and then.

[pamosmusic]

^ that's my method. Just hit the same six note cluster over and over. You know what they say ... Even a stopped clock

[pushkar000]

The problem with CST and in fact any other T is that there is no way to teach or explain good music.

[fumblefingers]

The problem with CST and in fact any other T is that there is no way to teach or explain good music.

Good music? It's certainly true that beauty is in the eye/ear of the beholder.

But - and it's a really big bodacious but - it's possible to explain organized and logical music.

[pushkar000]

Good music? It's certainly true that beauty is in the eye/ear of the beholder.

But - and it's a really big bodacious but - it's possible to explain organized and logical music.

Oh definitely, and its very advantageous to know all the explanations. But if we are talking about criticisms, there's really only one underlying criticism which is true for any theory or approach - no amount of explanation will explain melody and feeling.

[Dana]

I think there's too much emphasis nowadays to find a system for playing music. Music is a language. The more vocabulary you know the more you can convey your message to the world.

Arguments about chord scales vs chord tones is pointless. Might as well argue about nouns vs verbs. They're all important ingredients for communicating.