-
I think the main criticism of CST is not about CST itself at all. Rather, the criticism is "I wanted to learn to play jazz and I went to a teacher and I spent a couple years learning this and I sounded like sh*t when I tried to take a full chorus on 'Satin Doll' so I said to hell with it."
That was my experience, and the experience of many others whose paths I've crossed. Again, it's not a criticism of the theory. It's frustration of being taught the theory--for a long time---before one is taught even to play some simple tunes.
It's like using a grammar book as a first grade reader---only a precocious student (-who already knew how to read well) would flourish that way.
Again, I have no criticism of the theory, or of my first teacher. Great player, good guy, but that approach wasn't suited to my level of knowledge then.
-
06-02-2015 10:05 PM
-
Feeling, maybe not, but melody certainly.
Originally Posted by pushkar000
I'd agree it's tricky (because subjective) to explain what makes a good melody, but the basic principles of melody - phrasing, shape, range, note duration, melodic interval properties - can be taught. (Even though the best way to learn melodic language is by listening and copying...)
Language is a good analogy. The "feeling" is equivalent to what we want to say in that language. But in order to express that feeling, we need not only to have the right vocabulary, but also to understand the grammar, and use the right accents and inflections. While we can (and should) learn by listening, there are patterns and formulas in there, common practices which can be distilled.
CST is part of the grammar of a certain important strand of jazz. It might look like mere vocabulary (collections of notes), but it implies a way of organising those notes - and that's where the issues can arise, IMO. Treated as lists of vocabulary, it seems harmless enough (but also kind of "so what?"); but if it's treated as a system or method of performance - or indeed as a "theory"! - that's problematic.
I mean, obviously "chord scales" exist, and are a way of looking at the available material on each chord. But what exactly is the "theory" part? What makes it different from how players prior to the 1960s saw "the available material on each chord"?
E.g., I haven't listened to the whole of that Gary Burton lecture (I will), but near the beginning is a very strange anecdote about Stan Getz. GB suggests the only notes he was aware of (in theory) were the chord tones at any point, and a mere triad at that - for the other notes he'd have to wait until the heard the harmony so he could use his ear to fill in the rest. I simply don't believe that. If I'd been in that classroom I'd have asked: "did Stan tell you that's how he thought? Did you discuss his method of improvisation? Or was that simply how it appeared to you when you played with him?"
Surely Stan Getz was aware of the other chords in the song, and the melody, and how they all combined to produce a complete scale at any point? It's a no-brainer, after all. I can certainly believe he played by ear, in response to what he heard. But that doesn't have any implication for the extent of his awareness of note choices at any point.
When I first read Levine's book, I was impressed by the notion that a chord was a kind of frozen scale, and a scale was a chord (with maximum extensions) spread out. But it wasn't news to me that, on each chord in a song, the entire scale was available. I didn't see the point of naming each chord scale: in what way is "D dorian" any different from "C major scale on a Dm chord"? OK, it's shorter, and that's good
. But where's the "theory"? Why break down something simple (a key scale) into fragments with fancy names?
When it gets to certain altered dominants, then the concept starts to make more sense, because we arrive at non-diatonic pitch collections, which we can't always guess from the context. But still, the vertical approach (which CST tacitly encourages) takes one's eye off the ball - still talking functional harmony here, btw, because Nettles and Graf do. OK, for a G7alt chord we can apply the "G altered scale" (or Ab melodic minor if we want yet one more stage removed from what's actually happening). But the point of the alterations is the chromatic voice-leading on to the next chord. Sure, it's good to know the full complement of available notes - so we know a G7#5#9 can also have a b5 and b9. But it took me a while to realise that was the idea: to use those alterations to resolve on to the following chord. I certainly don't recall Levine saying that, and the jazz tutors I heard talk about CST didn't say that either. Maybe they took it for granted? In which case, it's merely bad teaching (common human failing).
Maybe I was lucky in that I already understood that the point of improvisation was to construct melodic phrases, linking chord to chord. That's how the altered scale clicked, as I realised I could attach it to that purpose. But as an isolated "chord scale", it was no use at all. IOW, the CST angle (vertical chord-scales) had distracted me for a while - into some quite intellectually seductive theory (Levine is a good writer) - but when it came to actually making music, its relevance evaporated.
As I say, none of that is the fault of CST itself. One wouldn't condemn the alphabet for not enabling one to speak well.
The problem is (a) applying it to functional harmony, where it offers nothing new; and (b) even when applied to the post-functional harmony it sprang from, to assume it's some kind of improvisation method - as if the traditional principles of melodic invention and jazz vocabulary somehow don't apply.
Of course, no teacher is going to say they don't apply! But it seems that's a common sin of omission, as if perhaps they accept that melodic invention can't be taught, and they take it for granted that jazz students will be listening to jazz and absorbing the melodic vocabulary by ear - when in fact many don't. A lot of students seem to believe they will learn everything about jazz in the classroom, and aren't aware of the immense amount of listening that's required. They will easily take CST as if it's a method, a path to follow which will solve all their problems.
After all, how many students, having paid for an expensive course, want to be told "you have to do most of the work yourself - we can give you tips, but we can't teach you the real essentials"? It may be no wonder that some jazz teachers retreat behind walls of theory...Last edited by JonR; 06-03-2015 at 04:59 AM.
-
In classical period melody is connected directly with harmony... when Mozart composed melody that meant harmony already... Bach's themes contain all harmonica possibilities.I'd agree it's tricky (because subjective) to explain what makes a good melody, but the basic principles of melody - phrasing, shape, range, note duration, melodic interval properties - can be taught. (Even though the best way to learn melodic language is by listening and copying...)
I mean melody was understood as one of the harmonic voices.
And phrasing also depnded first of all on the harmonic rythm.
So melody could be tauath through learning theory of harmony.
It's the meaning...Language is a good analogy. The "feeling" is equivalent to what we want to say in that language. But in order to express that feeling, we need not only to have the right vocabulary, but also to understand the grammar, and use the right accents and inflections. While we can (and should) learn by listening, there are patterns and formulas in there, common practices which can be distilled.
We are often a bit afraid of talking about meanong in concern of music.. like we expect it should kill the spirite of music... but meaning and semantics are there...
Not verbal expression of meaning of course. But the meaning.
It's quite new issue in musicolgy - but there are quite serious books even about it.. none I know in English unfortunately
-
i have a mate who is a great sax player ....
i asked him a question about the alt scale
or somesuch ....
I realised after a while that he didn't know
what i was talking about !
but he could talk notes , melody , sing examples of these freely ....
in other words , he had good EARS
it was then that realised i was on a blind
alley (for me) ... i already had all the theory
CS modes etc that i needed
i needed to be able to HEAR changes and
melodies
and that i should listen, sing lines , play tunes
and play a lot , get my ears growing ....
this was years ago , i'm still on that road..
ears are like muscles, the more you use them
the bigger they get
its a great journey ...
its lovely to be able to hear a bit ...
freedom !
-
if you can HEAR it you can play it
-
If you listen from around 17:00, chord tones is precisely what he's talking about: "voice-leading", "getting from chord to chord" - communicating the changes using chord tones. Good old-fashioned stuff! Originally Posted by Dana
You're right about "approaches", however. I have listened to the whole thing, and heard no mention of chromaticism - unless you count chord alterations as chromatics; which they are, but is a different usage from what I'm thinking of.
The whole video is definitely worth watching the whole way through. The last half, with the student band performances and his critiques, is mixed - interesting for other reasons - but most of the first half is gold.
What I find interesting is that nothing he is saying actually requires chord-scale theory to help explain it. IOW, he thinks of chord scales simply as one way of labelling the raw material. All the stuff he starts off with, talking about the bright-dark order of the modes, etc, the 10 basic scales, has no bearing whatsoever on the improvisation methods, strategies, thinking, he goes on to talk about.
I'm not even sure he's that sold on CST himself, as whenever he brings up scale knowledge (as he does later in his critiques of the students) it seems like something uninteresting and basic. At the beginning of the lecture, he spends barely any time at all demonstrating the individual modes, just ripping through each one, as if bored and wanting to get them out of the way. In the student critiques, while he picks up on the occasional lack of scale knowledge, he commends the players who communicate the changes in their solos - which means foregrounding chord tones - and other skills in rhythm, dynamics and melodic ideas; never congratulating any of them on scale choice.
You need to know your scales. No question. But it's all there in the music (chord by chord) after all.
As he says, from around 15:00-16:00, all you need to do (to determine the right notes to play) is look at (a) the chord tones, (b) the melody, (c) the preceding chord. (And I might add the following chord too.) That's one minute of a one-hour lecture, and it's possible to argue that it tells you all you need to know (in terms of finding your raw material anyway).
Of course, he's making the assumption that you have already learned all those scales (the modes) - as he did himself, by ear - and then have to decide which one to apply as you look at the chords. But you don't need to know the modes first - because the clues (for the "detective work") are all there. The names (the CST) are not necessary, and don't help.
Of course, you have to know the notes on your instrument. You have to know all the scale patterns and chord arpeggios. That's a technical challenge. But the music itself gives you your raw material. No need to analyse it down to individual chord scales, and certainly not to focus on one chord and ignore the ones either side (GB is quite clear about that).
My favourite piece of advice in the whole thing? Comping is not about the harmony - you don't need to communicate the changes (the soloist can do that); it's about rhythm. (The rest is all great, but that was the bit that made me sit up: wow, that's right!)Last edited by JonR; 06-03-2015 at 07:43 AM.
-
It turns out that it's no different than a classical composer who practices scales for the sake of agility on instrument, then turns around and writes a beautiful piece of music with interesting melody and harmony.
Or the golfer who is instructed in all kinds of techniques to improve his swing. Then on the course, all they think about is setting up properly and following through. Everything in between becomes automatic. Ideally...
One problem that can come up is not in theory but in practice. If you apply CST at the jam having focused on practicing the scales, then you're going to sound like you're playing scales. Equal time to the arpeggios might help.
-
newly - discovered poem by Kerouac?i have a mate who is a great sax player ....
i asked him a question about the alt scale
or somesuch ....
I realised after a while that he didn't know
what i was talking about !
but he could talk notes , melody , sing examples of these freely ....
in other words , he had good EARS
it was then that realised i was on a blind
alley (for me) ... i already had all the theory
CS modes etc that i needed
i needed to be able to HEAR changes and
melodies
and that i should listen, sing lines , play tunes
and play a lot , get my ears growing ....
this was years ago , i'm still on that road..
ears are like muscles, the more you use them
the bigger they get
its a great journey ...
its lovely to be able to hear a bit ...
freedom !
-
wow !!! Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
mantra ....
"note choice is not terribly important"
do what ??
could you expand and explain that a bit more please ?
ps not just hep , anyone who agrees with the
statement , please chime inLast edited by pingu; 06-03-2015 at 09:47 AM.
-
After re-reading what I posted earlier, what I neglected to say was, chord scale theory was the major focus at Berklee when I was there. Too much, in my opinion, but perhaps that was just my impression.
That was my experience too Mark. While chord scales are important, it doesn't tell the whole story of improvisation. I wish they had focused more on chord tones and approaches. Heck, they didn't even teach us bebop scales! When I first learned about adding an extra note, putting the chord tones on the downbeats, that was a revelation for me. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
I think things have changed since then. From what I understand they don't even use the Bill Leavitt books anymore. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but those books were the core fo the guitar curriculum.
I understand what you're saying, but what if someone just beginning doesn't know what voice leading is? He mentions voice leading, demonstrates it, says it's important while improvising, but he never really describes what it is. In my opinion he glosses over it. He should say something like, "It's important to make sure the listener hears the 3rds and 7ths moving through the tune", or something like that. Originally Posted by JonR
I like Jerry Bergonzi's quote about chord scales, "They get you in the right ball park, but not necessarily the right base."Last edited by Dana; 06-03-2015 at 10:29 AM.
-
... or Walt Whitman?wow !!!
mantra ....
"note choice is not terribly important"
do what ??
could you expand and explain that a bit more please ?
ps not just hep , anyone who agrees with the
statement , please chime in
-
CST is not ...Theory of Music.... right, is says just what it is ...Chord Scale.... theory.
Would.... Chord Tones and Extensions Theory... be easier to understand...
It's just a collection of.... Jazz common practice usage of which scales have been used with chords....
Again would it be easier to understand.... what CHORD TONES and EXTENSIONS to use with CHORDS
Example Gmaj7.... you can call the notes ...chord tones and extensions, arpeggios, the tricky part is always what are the extensions.
So again.... what SCALES in relationship to a CHORD, have been used.
Now here is the next step...which scales in relationship to a chord have been used.....here we go,
AFTER the FUNCTION of the CHORD with relationship to a TONAL CENTER has been determined.
So instead of just saying... hey use the chord tone arpeggios, adds some embellishment, add chromatic approach and passing notes...all with relationship to a melody or create your own... maybe the ten step approach, work in some random blue notes... hey my aunt ....anyway
The use of scales the modal terms are simply used for identification of note collection.
The advantages of being aware of CST.... you have a organized system of being aware of extensions for all chords. And not just one choice.... you become aware of the relationships and Function of chords with respect to ALL TONAL CENTERS, and how the extensions can have logical and organized common practice.
You begin to be able to look and hear different possibilities of what creates harmonic movement... what controls FUNCTION. Doesn't mean you have to play anyway... you can be as straight as you choose, develop your improv, compositions, what ever you use music for.... anyway you choose. But you'll at least be aware of what other musicians might be playing...
Take any tune... and make an analysis... the analysis will have as a starting point, a tonal reference. Now use that analysis as your reference for determining chord tones and extension.
That's all CST is... Now make a different Analysis... use a different tonal reference, if you don't have the skills for making analysis for music.... your really not ready for usage of CST... and really not in a position to criticize something you don't really understand....
Great players can make anything sound great... I would guess most on this forum are here to become better players. Don't let average players who don't even understand CST tell you what it is and why it doesn't work.
All the really good players who generally bitch about CST have been through it and understand what it is. The typical criticism is most guitar players generally don't understand CST and really just pick up some guidelines for playing scales over chords.... Hell most don't even know what Function or an analysis is... and I don't blame them... I would bet most of their teachers don't either.
-
This is my experience too. I've tried to think in terms of a scale for each individual chord and my little brain just can't keep up. Maybe it's an old habit, but I typically find the key that works for the tune and then find the interesting notes that highlight the chords throughout the changes. Originally Posted by Jonzo
-
I have no proof of this (and I have better things to do than to do the research) but I think CST was developed as part of what was necessary for jazz education to be accepted by the mainstream colleges and universities as legitimate degree programs. That is, when David Baker and others went to their respective colleges’ music departments, they had to be able to say, “at the end of the degree program, our students will know X,Y and Z, and be able to demonstrate that knowledge through written exams, etc. as well as be able to play X number of tunes and improvise over each, etc. I don’t think they would have succeeded in obtaining accreditation with any music department if all they were able to do is produce fantastic jazz musicians without any of the pen-to-paper evidence that the students had learned some measurable “stuff,” namely all the theory, of which CST is a part.
Knowing music theory isn’t a bad thing by itself but for too many it becomes a distraction (mostly to those starting out) from really hearing the music and feeling (instead of thinking about) which notes work and which ones don’t and in what context. Everyone learns differently but there are many out there (myself included) who tend to approach things analytically, which may work if you’re looking to install that new faucet but not so much if what you really need to do is hear how those flatted fifths, sharp ninths, etc. sound over whatever chord, etc. Some may be able to see a chord on a chart and instantly translate that to a corresponding scale and think of the specific notes on that scale that sound good over that chord. It’s not impossible I guess. But at its core, music is not an intellectual exercise and I think teaching it that way does a disservice to many who are looking to learn how to play jazz. It’s a trade off – jazz education at the college/university level has arguably allowed the genre to hang on where it might otherwise might have disappeared entirely. But the fact that so many just starting out complain that they “know their scales but that their solos don’t sound like jazz” suggests that there’s at least an overemphasis on the intellectual side of what is essentially an aural endeavor.
-
A seven note scale is just a 13th chord arpeggio.
The key is to see note pools with highlighted "important notes." Don't worry so much about patterns, really.
-
I quite agree. He could have spent a lot more time on that, but I guess he assumed the students he was talking to were familiar enough with the concept. Judging from the band performances at the end, those are not jazz beginners. They know their chords, even if (occasionally) they didn't always negotiate their way through them that clearly. Originally Posted by Dana
-
As a long time player who is still fairly new to jazz I can relate to this. Following forums like these can be overwhelming at times. I hear guys talk about the theory and geometry of music and my eyes just sorta glaze over. I sometimes feel like since I don't understand that analytical stuff that I'm in over my head. At this point in my development, I find it easier to listen, hear what I like, try to replicate it, then figure out how I can use it. Maybe someday I'll be able to understand and explain the "why" like other folks here can but for now I just wanna make good music. Originally Posted by Solo Flight
-
Hal Galper's rant on Chord Scales.
-
I'm hardly qualified to argue with Reg, but...
Still, that word "theory" suggests too much Originally Posted by Reg
Is it even that, though? How much, or in what periods of jazz, did players approach a tune from that perspective? Looking at chords individually? Originally Posted by Reg
IOW, "common practice" covers many different approaches, in different periods and styles.
That's certainly a lot less pretentious. Maybe less snappy than "chord scale theory" though. Originally Posted by Reg
I'd dispute how "tricky" that is. It starts from the scale of the key, qualified by any secondary or substitute chords (whatever chromatics they introduce), and then by ear, judging which of that pitch collection sounds off on any individual chord. Originally Posted by Reg
I'm not saying there is no "theory" involved there, nor that there isn't plenty to teach, with reference to jazz practice of course.
But - as I see it - it becomes tricky (tricki-er) when you separate the chords into individual vertical scales. I've always found that to be a superfluous exercise in functional harmonic tunes. It's introducing another dimension, complete with irrelevant terminology. (Terms which may have the advantage of economy, but - through their original meaning - suggest irrelevant musical applications.)
In modal jazz, of course - or any music where chords really do exist as separate tonal/modal entities - it's different. That's where the concept is not only helpful but essential.
Well, I'd see that as the first step. Originally Posted by Reg
1. what's the tonal centre? what key scale do these chords share (and/or does the melody imply)?
Then there are further steps:
2. which chords do not share that scale? what do those chromatic notes do? (Obviously they change the given scale, but they also have a purpose towards the following chord).
That gives the basic raw material: one tonal scale, plus some functional alterations here and there (maybe modulations, but also just secondary functions).
What else do jazz musicians do with that (in terms of note choice)? What other notes might be added? and are there principles we can discern underlying those additional choices? I.e., why and when do they use notes outside of what the chords - altogether - supply?
We don't need a theory to explain why they choose notes from the key or from the chord tones; that's given.
What we need is a theory to explain (a) why some of those notes might be avoided at particular times; (b) why other (chromatic) notes might be used as well or instead.
Seems to me CST begins from there, ignoring the above steps - as the chords alone are enough, and key has no useful role to play. (To be fair, I can see there's a logic to that, and that it could be seen as a simpler approach, given that jazz so often moves through different key centres, using subs, etc.)
Sounds plenty to me. What else is there? Originally Posted by Reg
You mean the 10 scales GB outlines in the video? Originally Posted by Reg
OK, I'm fine with that, it just runs the risk of association with modal "moods". Originally Posted by Reg
(Misled student: "I think I'm gonna apply a phrygian mood to this tune..."
)
But my point is you don't need CST for that. (At least, I understood all that fine before I ever encountered CST.) Originally Posted by Reg
You don't need the modal terms anyhow. Although I'll admit I can't think of any other one-word terms for chord-scales that would do instead....
To put it another way: I was playing pre-1960s styles of jazz happily - with no confusion anyway, I wouldn't claim great technical skill - for some 20 years before I started taking jazz lessons. That was when I discovered - and began to understand and appreciate - post-1960s jazz. And the chord-scale approach helped me with that. What it didn't help me with was (a) improving my understanding of pre-1960s standards, or (b) improvisational principles in general. It simply didn't connect with that. (I accept that CST is not designed to do either - as I'm sure you'd agree.)
I knew how to create melodic phrases using given pitch collections (as outlined in melodies and chord progressions). Pretty much a no-brainer for me. It was the idea that a pitch collection could change from chord to chord (as it does in modal jazz) that was an eye-opener.
But that didn't apply in older functional harmony, where chords link from one to the next. (Sometimes one could argue it could, eg if you separated out an altered dominant. But the effect of that isolation was to obscure the whole purpose of the alterations in the first place, which were about melodic voice-leading.)
That's what I don't accept - although I guess it might just be semantics. I don't see CST illuminating chord function at all, as I understand that term. Originally Posted by Reg
I can see that chords can sometimes have an ambiguous function, if you just look at a 7th symbol. Eg, a min7 chord.
An Am7 which seems to be in a C major chord progression might seem to be the diatonic vi; but if it's followed by D7, maybe it would be better to consider it as ii of G, and not vi of C?
One could use the terms "aeolian/dorian" to describe the difference. But that does nothing to explain anything about function - it's vice versa (function explains the pitch collection). If we use the Am7 as a ii-V pair with D7, then - via the F# note - we direct the harmony towards G major one chord sooner. The pitch collection for the Am7 is then the G major scale. It's not "A dorian mode" in any useful sense as far as I can see. Obviously A is the root, and obviously that changes how the scale sounds. But the best name for the pitch collection (IMO) is "G major", because that's the tonality in question; that's where we're heading.
Of course, we use the scale (all 7 notes) with an awareness of the Am7 chord tones (how could we not?)
I can totally understand that CST is just a different perspective on this information; aimed more at the chords than the tonal centres, perhaps because (in practice) those tonal centres rarely dictate diatonic scales over large groups of chords - so we may as well look at each chord separately. (I just instinctively resist that, because it denies my own understanding.)
OK, well that's what I do anyway, and always did (self-taught, beyond the major scale I learned at school). I just don't call it CST! Originally Posted by Reg
If that really is all CST is, I can't possibly have any objection. But then why do so many discussions on CST ignore key; what I would consider the "tonal reference"? There's a definite sense, among proponents of CST, that key can be dispensed with and sequences considered as a string of separate modes. Where did that nonsense come from?
(Nettles and Graf present that view, but as an alternative to the key-based view, with no apparent value judgement of either.)
I'm not letting anyone tell me why it doesn't work. It works for me sometimes, and not other times. Depending on the type of sequence. Simple as that. Originally Posted by Reg
Mind you, I'm only an average player....
Could be! Originally Posted by Reg
I totally agree about guitar players, who do seem (as a race) to misunderstand modes almost wilfully. It's down - apparently - to not paying enough attention to good teaching, or too much attention to bad teaching.
It's a shame - of course - that an innocent enough concept like CST should get tainted with the mystical modal mythology of the mediocre rock guitarist. (lots of m's there...)
-
^^
lol
-
The mystically modal musings of....
CST
-
edit: this was in response to a deleted post.Last edited by joe2758; 06-03-2015 at 03:56 PM.
-
no, what eventually became known as CST has its roots in Berklee's curriculum going back to the old Schillinger House days... Herb Pomeroy thought they might have gotten it from Stefan Wolpe. Originally Posted by Solo Flight
Pomeroy was a legend at Berklee for many years, and his classes were "ground zero" for CST and its applications
-
bump .... Originally Posted by pingu
no one want to take this up ?
(otherwise i'm gonna stick to my guns)
-
Nope, I ain't backing that one up.
Melody's king. A good melody HAS an interesting rhythm, a good player delivers it with good time.
Reply With Quote
Some news about the double bass
Today, 04:38 AM in Other Styles / Instruments