Chief criticisms - Chord Scale Theory

[pingu]

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.

thanks ... thats re-assuring mr B !

I thought i'd gone mad , no-one seemed to
question that mantra , i thought someone
should

[MarkRhodes]

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.

Pomeroy was a legend at Berklee for many years, and his classes were "ground zero" for CST and its applications

I didn't know that. I tell you, I learn something (worth knowing) here every day!

[Reg]

Yea Herb was a great man and teacher...

Ok so from most posts... most don't understand CST... If anyone wants to go through what it actually is and how it works... I'll gladly help... I understand it well... and also understand Functional Harmony... well... so we can maybe just go through some jazz tunes, make analysis of them and maybe even learn some new approaches to playing jazz...

Jon you should be involved... you don't understand CST... it might help, but I don't believe I've ever heard you actually play, do you even play jazz. Or not... who cares. Don't use it, do what you do... whatever works, but would be nice to have some critics involved...
We might actually learn something... I'm busy this time of year... I'm out of town tomorrow and will be back Sunday AM.

I'm around the rest of the month... almost, But I'll commit to being involved and help...I can also perform anything I BS about... without practice, not being arrogant or egotistical... I'm nobody... but it's what it is.

[Jehu]

Reg, feel free to do this over in the Practical Standards threads (didn't you start that whole thing?)... any action over there is good action. It's great to have people posting their playing, but think it would be great to have more discussion and possible guidance from the experienced members.

[Stevebol]

Berklee Today

Chord-Tone vs. Chord-Scale Soloing
by Professor Hal Crook
For the past few decades or so, more and more jazz players have been using the chord-scale approach for soloing over chords in progressions. The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.
Using the chord-scale approach gives improvisers (especially less proficient ones) greater melodic and rhythmic mobility (i.e., they can improvise pitch sequences in eighth notes, triplets, sixteenth notes, etc.). Whereas chord tones must be played in leaps (minor third intervals or wider), a chord scale can be played in steps (major and minor second intervals), and consecutive steps are much easier to play fast and accurately than consecutive leaps. In general, less-experienced players are also familiar with scales and scale patterns than chord arpeggios from practicing technical exercises in method books and, therefore, prefer to use chord scales for improvising.
A chord scale contains not only the tones of the chord to which it is applied, but also the tensions. Therefore, by improvising on a chord using a chord scale, the soloist will almost certainly play some chord tones and some of the more colorful notes (tensions) as well. It is likely that without the help of chord scales, a soloist may not know (i.e., be able to hear) specifically what tensions fit the chord tones appropriately in a particular harmonic context.
So, in a sense, chord scales do the work of and for the ear. They enable an improviser to play active melody lines that not only agree with the chords, but also contain the more colorful melody notes (i.e., notes other than chord tones) that the player may not be able to find or select by ear alone.
However, for beginner and intermediate-level players, the chord-scale approach has a potential downside. Many students begin studying chord scales early in their musical education and attempt to apply the knowledge acquired immediately on their instruments. Unfortunately, this often happens too soon in the student's development as an improviser--before he or she has learned how to shape an appealing improvised melody by ear on a chord or chord progression using only, or mainly, chord tones.
Chord scales can present too much information, or information that cannot be readily processed, controlled, and used musically by the novice improviser. It is much easier to understand chord-scale theory than it is to apply it with musical results in an improvised solo. Improvising on chords with chord scales means that a soloist can play melody notes that he or she does not recognize or cannot identify and control by ear. This can result in wandering, shapeless, directionless, or mechanical-sounding melody lines. Often the lines are played in eighth notes to the exclusion of all other rhythm values, producing undesirable melodic and rhythmic content. Such improvised melodies often tend to outline tonic quality on nontonic functioning chords and vice versa.
Direction changes in the melodic curve are also somewhat less frequent because the rhythms are predominantly eighth notes and are less noticeable because of the predominance of stepwise motion. (Melodic intervals wider than a second or a third are less common if not rare in elementary-level improvised solos using the chord-scale approach.) This produces a consistently linear melodic line that sounds limited or uninteresting because it is not balanced by more angular melodic curves.
It is relevant to point out here that the pioneers of jazz improvisation relied on their listening/hearing skills and their ability to accurately outline basic chord sound to guide their improvising and to create inspired melodies. They did not rely on the mechanics of chord scales. Beginning improvisers should, therefore, first experience how good it sounds and how right it feels to play inside the chords using only the chord tones before experiencing the allure and sophistication of chord scales. Improvising melodies using only chord tones connects the soloist to the song's harmony, giving him or her a feeling of oneness with the music. This is essential before a player can hear how to use chord scales and nonharmonic approach notes effectively.
Ideally, melodic ear training for improvisers should begin with chord-tone soloing and then advance to chord tones with approach notes and/or chord scale soloing. The musical example is a chord-tone solo on the progression of a well-known standard tune.
Also see the sidebar:
Is Chord-Tone Soloing Necessary for Advanced Improvisers?

[pkirk]

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

OK, I'll take it on

I agree with the statement. For you statistics fans, here's how I'd break it down

micro-rhythmic content (time, swing, groove, articulation) 40%
group interaction (dynamics, locking in, playing your part, etc) 30%
Phrasing 15%
Tone 10%
Note choice 5%

I'm being a bit hyperbolic but.....Note choice is the easiest to talk about, and the theory fans can detect and describe all kinds of structure in analyzing note choice, but its much harder to formalize the other ingredients I'm mentioned.
Geeks love to focus on it because it has a bunch of easily quantifiable aspects, e.g. CST.

But..if you have been playing for a long time and you still wonder why, despite having all your arpeggios and scales and
chord substitutions etc under control and you still don't sound like you fit the tradition it's probably because you focused too much on note choice at the expense of some of the other categories.

I get the "good melodies include good rhythm, etc" argument, but when I listen to a lot of the music posted in this forum (and when I listen to my own playing) what sticks out like a sore thumb is always how much more primitive the groove is compared to the note choice: too much rubato stuff, dropped beats, stiff swing or stiff phrasing, even when the notes aren't that bad.


Im really just describing where I've been focused on the last 10 years: the first 20 years of my jazz guitar playing were spent obsessing over note choice and harmony, and I never really felt like my playing was grooving until I started focusing on groove. Of course, my groove is still weak...but I've found that for where I'm at right now, note choice is low on the list of things I want to work on to get better, and it's been borne out by the fact that the more I focus on groove the more people ask me to play with them.

[Stevebol]

I know that there are detractors of so-called CST, but I don't recall the arguments. What are the few, primary criticisms of CST?

thanks gang.

According to Berkley it's not a foundation. It's advanced. How much time, exactly, and how advanced does someone need to be to move past chord tone soloing and into CST? Aren't musicians generally thinking about chords and scales instinctively much of the time?
I'm not sure what to make of the whole debate because modes are so easy to transpose on guitar.

[christianm77]

Yea Herb was a great man and teacher...

Ok so from most posts... most don't understand CST... If anyone wants to go through what it actually is and how it works... I'll gladly help... I understand it well... and also understand Functional Harmony... well... so we can maybe just go through some jazz tunes, make analysis of them and maybe even learn some new approaches to playing jazz...

Jon you should be involved... you don't understand CST... it might help, but I don't believe I've ever heard you actually play, do you even play jazz. Or not... who cares. Don't use it, do what you do... whatever works, but would be nice to have some critics involved...
We might actually learn something... I'm busy this time of year... I'm out of town tomorrow and will be back Sunday AM.

I'm around the rest of the month... almost, But I'll commit to being involved and help...I can also perform anything I BS about... without practice, not being arrogant or egotistical... I'm nobody... but it's what it is.

Reg, as you have touched upon, it does seem CST is poorly taught and understood. That said the mainstream understanding of CST is probably the not really properly taught or understood version, and this does seem to the be the version that is being perpetuated.

As an aside, I started putting chord scale stuff on the piano, and I found right away that I was coming up with stuff that had always eluded me on the guitar. The use of the melodic minor modes and how they can resolve into other scales becomes immediately obvious, and you can get some lovely effects. I then put some of these movements back on the guitar, and was happy with the results. I think writing out or putting CST on the keyboard really helps to see it for me.

On the piano you can also see how 'parsimoniously' you can use scales to describe harmony, by using only a few sharps and flats in the key to maximum effect.

I'm always a bit leery about CST's reliance on seven note scales though (well actually, it's like seven note scales.... apart from ... errr... the diminished and whole tone. .... errr what do we play over the diminished seventh chord again.... err...) seems a bit arbitrary.

Why not 6, 8 or something else more rhythmically manageable? Why just have a 7 note Dorian mode when you could have an 8 note 'minor 6' scale with the major 7th in as well and have all the good sounding 'static minor' notes? Why bother with a troublesome 7 note major when you could drop the avoid note completely and have just a 6 note scale?

I like the Barry Harris approach for this reason as it seems a very thorough system for making scales musical, although for improvisation he still starts with the 7 note scales.

The terms are troublesome. Terminology for non major scale modes is a f**king mess, and I will fight (with swords if necessary) anyone who disagrees. I mean if you like names like locrian natural second, really? There are 8 syllables in that scale description, and when you get these lists of 'major mode scale name + some accidentals' it really gets eye bleedingly verbose. Some can deal with this better than others.

I prefer the approach of just saying the parent scale and the degree of the key it is built on, which is good for most functional aspects. So Locrian natural 2 on a iim7b5 chord, for me is iv melodic minor, which also means that when you learn that the Lydian dominant bVII7#11 chord is also iv melodic minor, you can lump them together under the same category.

Again, for my money, this stuff is more obvious on the keyboard.

If you play a non-functional tune and you have a m6b5 chord, say, then legitimately I think you have to use the awkward name...

[JonR]

Berklee Today

Chord-Tone vs. Chord-Scale Soloing
by Professor Hal Crook
For the past few decades or so, more and more jazz players have been using the chord-scale approach for soloing over chords in progressions. The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.

Well, who'd've thought it!?
Those great brains must have been working overtime to come up with that...

Using the chord-scale approach gives improvisers (especially less proficient ones) greater melodic and rhythmic mobility (i.e., they can improvise pitch sequences in eighth notes, triplets, sixteenth notes, etc.). Whereas chord tones must be played in leaps (minor third intervals or wider), a chord scale can be played in steps (major and minor second intervals), and consecutive steps are much easier to play fast and accurately than consecutive leaps.

Wow, this is gold....

In general, less-experienced players are also familiar with scales and scale patterns than chord arpeggios from practicing technical exercises in method books and, therefore, prefer to use chord scales for improvising.

Ah-ha. It does indeed make sense that they would.
And that's a good thing?
Where does the improvisation teaching come in?

A chord scale contains not only the tones of the chord to which it is applied, but also the tensions. Therefore, by improvising on a chord using a chord scale, the soloist will almost certainly play some chord tones and some of the more colorful notes (tensions) as well. It is likely that without the help of chord scales, a soloist may not know (i.e., be able to hear) specifically what tensions fit the chord tones appropriately in a particular harmonic context.

OK. Now we seem to be slowly getting somewhere.

Still, one could rephrase "improvising on a chord using a chord scale", as "improvising on a chord using a (the) scale". IOW, the "scale" (diatonic scale of the key) only becomes a "chord scale" due to the chord context at the time.
So one doesn't - in any meaningful sense IMO - "use a chord scale". One "uses a scale on a chord". The "chord-scale" effect (or the "mode") is what emerges, automatically.
This might seem like semantics, but I think it's a crucial distinction, an important change of emphasis.

So, in a sense, chord scales do the work of and for the ear. They enable an improviser to play active melody lines that not only agree with the chords, but also contain the more colorful melody notes (i.e., notes other than chord tones) that the player may not be able to find or select by ear alone.

Whoah. Seems to be a few contentious statements there.
No kind of scale (chord scale or not) will alone "enable an improviser to play active melody lines", any more than knowing the alphabet will enable a person to speak.
"Agreeing with the chords" only means including the arpeggio or part of it, and there are other ways of playing "active" melody lines.
Any note outside the arpeggio (diatonic or chromatic) can be a useful "colorful melody note".

To sum up (so far):
Obviously, the player needs to know what other notes he/she can use beside the notes in the arpeggio. (We assume the arpeggio is the foundation, and it's good this is recognised - many beginner improvisers seem unaware of the importance of chords, let alone keys.)
It's equally obvious - to me - that the scale of the key is the place to look for those other notes.
And if the key is not obvious, then one can look at the surrounding chords, and take their chord tones as passing notes (much as Gary Burton says in his lecture).
One might argue that further notes beyond that pool are a more advanced level (chromatics, approach notes). But I'd have said that those choices are blindingly obvious, and barely need saying.

I would accept that maybe jazz beginners need a review of the concept of keys and chord progression - there seems to be a lot of learning of scales and scale patterns without any concept of where they come from, or what they mean. IOW, a lot of beginners seem to be learning technical drills and not actually playing any music....
But given a basic awareness of key, and knowledge of arpeggios, then the essential material for improvisation is all there. The "chord-scale" angle (the terminology at least) doesn't seem to offer anything revealing. It should be obvious that one can use the whole scale on any chord (why would one not?), and one will hear straight away how the non-chord tones behave as tensions - that the scale sounds different on each chord (because of course the chords sound different relative to each other, relative to the tonic).
This is important foundational stuff, no question. I'm only saying there may be better ways of teaching it, with less emphasis on individual chord scales, and more on key as a whole, and melodic connections between chords. Ideally using existing pieces of music as examples....

However, for beginner and intermediate-level players, the chord-scale approach has a potential downside. Many students begin studying chord scales early in their musical education and attempt to apply the knowledge acquired immediately on their instruments. Unfortunately, this often happens too soon in the student's development as an improviser--before he or she has learned how to shape an appealing improvised melody by ear on a chord or chord progression using only, or mainly, chord tones.

Ah-ha! Now we hit paydirt. This really is the "potential downside".
So how do we deal with that?

Chord scales can present too much information, or information that cannot be readily processed, controlled, and used musically by the novice improviser.

Yes.

It is much easier to understand chord-scale theory than it is to apply it with musical results in an improvised solo.

Yes - although it's a moot point whether it really is easy to understand chord-scale theory. As described above, it doesn't seem to be a "theory" at all, only a statement about the content of a key. It's "diatonic key theory", if anything. One might well look at the "chord-scale" idea and think one doesn't understand it, because surely it must be more complicated than that? (Not so far it isn't, although it does get more complicated....)

But of course the business of the player - what they've come to a jazz school to learn how to do - is those "musical results in an improvised solo". If CST doesn't help with that - what's it for?

Improvising on chords with chord scales means that a soloist can play melody notes that he or she does not recognize or cannot identify and control by ear. This can result in wandering, shapeless, directionless, or mechanical-sounding melody lines.

Yes. The clue is in the ear, of course, which needs training in that respect.

Often the lines are played in eighth notes to the exclusion of all other rhythm values, producing undesirable melodic and rhythmic content.

A result of scale practice, I'd say. And not understanding the difference between playing scales and playing tunes.

Such improvised melodies often tend to outline tonic quality on nontonic functioning chords and vice versa.

Well, if they forget to foreground the arpeggios, yes.
(CST is badly taught if it gives the impression all scale notes are equal....)

[cont...]

[JonR]

It is relevant to point out here that the pioneers of jazz improvisation relied on their listening/hearing skills and their ability to accurately outline basic chord sound to guide their improvising and to create inspired melodies. They did not rely on the mechanics of chord scales.

Bingo!

Beginning improvisers should, therefore, first experience how good it sounds and how right it feels to play inside the chords using only the chord tones before experiencing the allure and sophistication of chord scales.

Yes. And would it be impolite to suggest they should also try learning to play some classic jazz melodies first?? (A lot of them are based on chord tones, of course, and show how chord tones can be used to create attractive melodies.)

Ideally, melodic ear training for improvisers should begin with chord-tone soloing and then advance to chord tones with approach notes and/or chord scale soloing.

Ah, nice to see "approach notes" mentioned! - and "and/or" is fine.
However, the best way to begin "melodic ear training" is - dare I say it - playing melodies. Learning the vocabulary (and the "grammar" and "accents", not just the "words").
Naturally one should do that with an awareness of how the melodies use chord tones. But using chord tones alone as an exercise (without a fund of melodic experience) could easily result in soloing that sounds as much like a drill as 8th runs up and down scales. The inexperienced player might well end up feeling that chord tones alone is "boring" or frustrating (inexpressive), and they need some other scale notes in there to open it up. And then they're back (potentially) with the non-melodic scale running.

If there's one thing missing from all the above - and maybe it's taken for granted, or covered elsewhere - it's the playing of actual songs. Not necessarily jazz standards, but any kind of composed melody and chord sequence.
One will learn nothing from any of the above without some grounding in playing music. Likewise, I believe one can learn everything one needs to know from playing music - listening and copying. Jazz tuition should be about filling any gaps that might occur from merely listening and copying - revealing connections and common practices.
...

By the way - if anyone's interested - I am currently reading Nettles and Graf - about half-way through so far - and I'm very impressed with it as a survey of functional jazz harmony. It's probably the best jazz theory book I've read in that respect. The language is a little dry, and often harder to read than (say) Mark Levine - it comes across more like an academic classical treatise. The only problem with it is they do keep talking about this chord-scale business.... It doesn't seem to add anything to the explanations, and comes across like a superfluous add-on.
The exceptions (perhaps) are things like the choices of scale on various chromatic chords. Often these are just simple (predictable) adaptations of local diatonic scales - that one could easily work out for oneself - but there are sometimes choices (recommendations) which can seem counter-intuitive on the face of it, but work.
So I'll admit there's a dimension being revealed there that hadn't occurred to me before. (I never knew there were so many potential scale choices on a dim7 chord, depending on its function/context... Maybe one day I'll get the chance to actually use them all....)

The most serious thing lacking - where Levine (apparently) wins - is the absence of illustrative notated examples from the jazz canon. They recommend studying specific tunes for each topic covered, which is a good encouragement to the student to do their own work - only titles are given. And maybe they couldn't get a licence for copyright material. But it would be nice to see - especially regarding the CST angle - actual examples of these principles in practice.
Mind you, Levine's examples are mostly contentious. They don't necessarily illustrate the points he's making; other interpretations are often possible. For me, I'd want to see quotes from jazz recordings showing the incontrovertible use of CST principles, to accept it as valid theory. (I don't doubt such things exist - and some of Levine's quotes are good evidence - but CST too often smacks of something theorists have invented - because it makes sense - not something they've arrived at after listening to actual jazz.)
Then again, one can listen to jazz and hear all kinds of things one wants or expects to hear, and make sense of it from various angles. I'd accept that CST is one of those angles. (Not one I much like myself.)

I probably shouldn't say this, but it's easy enough to find the book free online (although the scans leave something to be desired), eg:
http://www.ramanujanramanujan.com/fo...nd%20Graf..pdf

[GuyBoden]

By the way - if anyone's interested - I am currently reading Nettles and Graf - about half-way through so far - and I'm very impressed with it as a survey of functional jazz harmony. It's probably the best jazz theory book I've read in that respect. The language is a little dry, and often harder to read than (say) Mark Levine - it comes across more like an academic classical treatise. The only problem with it is they do keep talking about this chord-scale business....

If you like the book and think it's useful, it's still available in print, so you should buy it..

[fumblefingers]

Yea Herb was a great man and teacher...

Ok so from most posts... most don't understand CST... If anyone wants to go through what it actually is and how it works... I'll gladly help... I understand it well... and also understand Functional Harmony... well... so we can maybe just go through some jazz tunes, make analysis of them and maybe even learn some new approaches to playing jazz...

Jon you should be involved... you don't understand CST... it might help, but I don't believe I've ever heard you actually play, do you even play jazz. Or not... who cares. Don't use it, do what you do... whatever works, but would be nice to have some critics involved...
We might actually learn something... I'm busy this time of year... I'm out of town tomorrow and will be back Sunday AM.

I'm around the rest of the month... almost, But I'll commit to being involved and help...I can also perform anything I BS about... without practice, not being arrogant or egotistical... I'm nobody... but it's what it is.

awesome idea, and it belongs in this section - Theory, or perhaps Improv depending on the focus.

you could start with some analysis of 1-2 well known standards. maybe one old standard (Porter, Berlin, etc) with lots of chords, and a post-bop tune, or even fusion (egads). Afro Blue, Freddie the Freeloader, Maiden Voyage, Footprints, Birdland, ... the list goes on and on.

peace out.

[pingu]

Im really just describing where I've been focused on the last 10 years: the first 20 years of my jazz guitar playing were spent obsessing over note choice and harmony, and I never really felt like my playing was grooving until I started focusing on groove. Of course, my groove is still weak...but I've found that for where I'm at right now, note choice is low on the list of things I want to work on to get better, and it's been borne out by the fact that the more I focus on groove the more people ask me to play with them.

fair enough .... the groove is essential to
jazz ... agreed

But , the notes are nice too
its easy to take nice lines for granted
when you've already spent 20 years
getting it together !

[pingu]

responding to the op ...

before you can run (and jump and dance)
you must learn to walk ....
before that , you must learn to stand up on your feet


So i think a good way to learn improv might be

1 play improv with one note (rhythm + phrazing)
or maybe just clap
get that down .... interacting with other people , riffs etc
2 then on a simple song
play improv with three or four notes only
but with good time and phrazing and
taking care to resolve onto the I properly
gert that somewhat down , in control

3 do the same with just the chord tones
get that in control

4 add a colour tone to the above
(just one !) learn to control that tension

5 pick another chromatic tone , just one

6 rinse and repeat

6 freely improv with chord tones
and free to add all the colors as you like

7 only when you've got the above going on
in control .... try out the CST

in other words for a beginer , there's just too
many options in CST ....
they need the options limited down

[GuyBoden]

Next time the free Gary Burton online course is available online, you would give it a try, it's easy enough. Refreshes the basics.

Here:
https://www.coursera.org/course/improvisation

[Solo Flight]

Berklee Today

Chord-Tone vs. Chord-Scale Soloing
by Professor Hal Crook
For the past few decades or so, more and more jazz players have been using the chord-scale approach for soloing over chords in progressions. The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.
Using the chord-scale approach gives improvisers (especially less proficient ones) greater melodic and rhythmic mobility (i.e., they can improvise pitch sequences in eighth notes, triplets, sixteenth notes, etc.). Whereas chord tones must be played in leaps (minor third intervals or wider), a chord scale can be played in steps (major and minor second intervals), and consecutive steps are much easier to play fast and accurately than consecutive leaps. In general, less-experienced players are also familiar with scales and scale patterns than chord arpeggios from practicing technical exercises in method books and, therefore, prefer to use chord scales for improvising.
A chord scale contains not only the tones of the chord to which it is applied, but also the tensions. Therefore, by improvising on a chord using a chord scale, the soloist will almost certainly play some chord tones and some of the more colorful notes (tensions) as well. It is likely that without the help of chord scales, a soloist may not know (i.e., be able to hear) specifically what tensions fit the chord tones appropriately in a particular harmonic context.
So, in a sense, chord scales do the work of and for the ear. They enable an improviser to play active melody lines that not only agree with the chords, but also contain the more colorful melody notes (i.e., notes other than chord tones) that the player may not be able to find or select by ear alone.
However, for beginner and intermediate-level players, the chord-scale approach has a potential downside. Many students begin studying chord scales early in their musical education and attempt to apply the knowledge acquired immediately on their instruments. Unfortunately, this often happens too soon in the student's development as an improviser--before he or she has learned how to shape an appealing improvised melody by ear on a chord or chord progression using only, or mainly, chord tones.
Chord scales can present too much information, or information that cannot be readily processed, controlled, and used musically by the novice improviser. It is much easier to understand chord-scale theory than it is to apply it with musical results in an improvised solo. Improvising on chords with chord scales means that a soloist can play melody notes that he or she does not recognize or cannot identify and control by ear. This can result in wandering, shapeless, directionless, or mechanical-sounding melody lines. Often the lines are played in eighth notes to the exclusion of all other rhythm values, producing undesirable melodic and rhythmic content. Such improvised melodies often tend to outline tonic quality on nontonic functioning chords and vice versa.
Direction changes in the melodic curve are also somewhat less frequent because the rhythms are predominantly eighth notes and are less noticeable because of the predominance of stepwise motion. (Melodic intervals wider than a second or a third are less common if not rare in elementary-level improvised solos using the chord-scale approach.) This produces a consistently linear melodic line that sounds limited or uninteresting because it is not balanced by more angular melodic curves.
It is relevant to point out here that the pioneers of jazz improvisation relied on their listening/hearing skills and their ability to accurately outline basic chord sound to guide their improvising and to create inspired melodies. They did not rely on the mechanics of chord scales. Beginning improvisers should, therefore, first experience how good it sounds and how right it feels to play inside the chords using only the chord tones before experiencing the allure and sophistication of chord scales. Improvising melodies using only chord tones connects the soloist to the song's harmony, giving him or her a feeling of oneness with the music. This is essential before a player can hear how to use chord scales and nonharmonic approach notes effectively.
Ideally, melodic ear training for improvisers should begin with chord-tone soloing and then advance to chord tones with approach notes and/or chord scale soloing. The musical example is a chord-tone solo on the progression of a well-known standard tune.
Also see the sidebar:
Is Chord-Tone Soloing Necessary for Advanced Improvisers?

Thank you for this - I think it describes exactly what I see as how CST has been misused or misunderstood, especially with respect to beginner/intermediate players.

[GuyBoden]

Thank you for this - I think it describes exactly what I see as how CST has been misused or misunderstood, especially with respect to beginner/intermediate players.

Yes, like all methods, you've got to put in the time and effort to find the good notes that fit the music.

Within each chord scale are the good notes, you just need to make an effort and find them.

[pkirk]

fair enough .... the groove is essential to
jazz ... agreed

But , the notes are nice too
its easy to take nice lines for granted
when you've already spent 20 years
getting it together !

well, I consider those 20 years as a missed opportunity. So much is made of the "theory" of note choice
in discussions of jazz that it leaves the impression that that's where the action is and what you have to learn to be a jazz player. Look at this thread. So I'd agree with hep, and also with the
assertion that CST is useful only when you have the language and groove of bebop and swing under control. If you want to play standards/bebop in a group, I'd say don't waste your time with statements like "use melodic minor a half step up on dominant chords", cop ideas from the masters instead.

Focus on note choice approaches such as CST becomes more useful when you improvise over more complicated harmony, in particular it gives you the ability to blow reasonably convincingly the first time you see a chart, and also gives you material to shed on when you practice new tunes.

Usual disclaimers, etc, just trying to relate my amateur/hobbyist/unschooled view.

[Solo Flight]

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.

Pomeroy was a legend at Berklee for many years, and his classes were "ground zero" for CST and its applications

Thanks for the info - I guess I would amend my supposition to say that lots of other jazz programs certainly adopted CST as a way to make their jazz degree curricula look more like the traditional academic model of teaching, making it more palatable to the music department muckity-mucks.

[Stevebol]

Bingo!
Yes. And would it be impolite to suggest they should also try learning to play some classic jazz melodies first?? (A lot of them are based on chord tones, of course, and show how chord tones can be used to create attractive melodies.)
Ah, nice to see "approach notes" mentioned! - and "and/or" is fine.
However, the best way to begin "melodic ear training" is - dare I say it - playing melodies. Learning the vocabulary (and the "grammar" and "accents", not just the "words").
Naturally one should do that with an awareness of how the melodies use chord tones. But using chord tones alone as an exercise (without a fund of melodic experience) could easily result in soloing that sounds as much like a drill as 8th runs up and down scales. The inexperienced player might well end up feeling that chord tones alone is "boring" or frustrating (inexpressive), and they need some other scale notes in there to open it up. And then they're back (potentially) with the non-melodic scale running.

If there's one thing missing from all the above - and maybe it's taken for granted, or covered elsewhere - it's the playing of actual songs. Not necessarily jazz standards, but any kind of composed melody and chord sequence.
One will learn nothing from any of the above without some grounding in playing music. Likewise, I believe one can learn everything one needs to know from playing music - listening and copying. Jazz tuition should be about filling any gaps that might occur from merely listening and copying - revealing connections and common practices.
...

By the way - if anyone's interested - I am currently reading Nettles and Graf - about half-way through so far - and I'm very impressed with it as a survey of functional jazz harmony. It's probably the best jazz theory book I've read in that respect. The language is a little dry, and often harder to read than (say) Mark Levine - it comes across more like an academic classical treatise. The only problem with it is they do keep talking about this chord-scale business.... It doesn't seem to add anything to the explanations, and comes across like a superfluous add-on.
The exceptions (perhaps) are things like the choices of scale on various chromatic chords. Often these are just simple (predictable) adaptations of local diatonic scales - that one could easily work out for oneself - but there are sometimes choices (recommendations) which can seem counter-intuitive on the face of it, but work.
So I'll admit there's a dimension being revealed there that hadn't occurred to me before. (I never knew there were so many potential scale choices on a dim7 chord, depending on its function/context... Maybe one day I'll get the chance to actually use them all....)

The most serious thing lacking - where Levine (apparently) wins - is the absence of illustrative notated examples from the jazz canon. They recommend studying specific tunes for each topic covered, which is a good encouragement to the student to do their own work - only titles are given. And maybe they couldn't get a licence for copyright material. But it would be nice to see - especially regarding the CST angle - actual examples of these principles in practice.
Mind you, Levine's examples are mostly contentious. They don't necessarily illustrate the points he's making; other interpretations are often possible. For me, I'd want to see quotes from jazz recordings showing the incontrovertible use of CST principles, to accept it as valid theory. (I don't doubt such things exist - and some of Levine's quotes are good evidence - but CST too often smacks of something theorists have invented - because it makes sense - not something they've arrived at after listening to actual jazz.)
Then again, one can listen to jazz and hear all kinds of things one wants or expects to hear, and make sense of it from various angles. I'd accept that CST is one of those angles. (Not one I much like myself.)

I probably shouldn't say this, but it's easy enough to find the book free online (although the scans leave something to be desired), eg:
http://www.ramanujanramanujan.com/fo...nd%20Graf..pdf

Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should? CST makes sense. There's nothing wrong with it. I think a lot of us might have a problem with it because we think CS instinctively.
If I'm listening to a phrase over a 2-5-1 that I want to grasp, modes are the furthest thing from my mind. If it's a phrase over a chord that's a flat or sharp 5th, maybe. If it's music that doesn't have a lot of chords, maybe.
I have my own CST that only makes sense to me. I'm an old-timer.
CST is logical and probably useful but it's basically musicologist jive.
It's seems a bit condescending to suggest that long-time players with plenty of knowledge somehow don't understand CST. I would suggest that people who say this don't understand modes and their place in classical music.

[Reg]

Hey Christian

On piano always helps... much easier picture to see etc...

Dim. chords are also dealt with, three basic type of function with possible scales.... scales can have 8 notes, or six etc... right. And CST is not a separate approach, it's to be used along side of traditional analysis, it just creates a different perspective for approaching analysis... a different method for crunching the numbers. More options.

And yea the label thing will drive anyone crazy. But as you said the degree of the parent scale always works, and if your not aware of the parent scale that the chord/scale is derived from... your again missing part of the concept. (Not you... in general).

I'll start another thread... somewhere, I think when I started the Practical Standards Thread I originally just played and verbally talked through tunes, made possible analysis and how that could effect and create different improv approaches.... more like how it does effect improv.

[JonR]

If you like the book and think it's useful, it's still available in print, so you should buy it..

I agree. It's not exactly expensive either.
It's not that useful for me personally - in practical terms - mainly because I don't play much jazz any more; and nor do I teach it. I have other theory books that cover much the same ground (although without some of the detail this one goes into).
Of course it's useful in explaining what CST is all about (in more depth than I've found elsewhere), so I have to decide if my need for that knowledge is worth the price....

I certainly feel duty bound to keep my mouth shut on the subject from now on - at least in this forum - until I've read it (free or paid for).

[JonR]

micro-rhythmic content (time, swing, groove, articulation) 40%
group interaction (dynamics, locking in, playing your part, etc) 30%
Phrasing 15%
Tone 10%
Note choice 5%

Roughly how I'd break it down too.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic but.....Note choice is the easiest to talk about, and the theory fans can detect and describe all kinds of structure in analyzing note choice, but its much harder to formalize the other ingredients I'm mentioned.
Geeks love to focus on it because it has a bunch of easily quantifiable aspects, e.g. CST.

My view too.
Doesn't make it wrong, just explains why it often seems exaggerated in importance.

[mr. beaumont]

I'd say that note choice becomes less important as the tempo and amount of notes goes up.

[christianm77]

"Note choice is not terribly important."

I said this first on the forum, so I will own it here. Let me explain my statement.

For what? For playing jazz at the highest level. How do I know? I have transcribed solos of the greatest jazz musicians of all time (not all of them obviously) for some players 90%-100% of what they play is rather dull, note choice wise. For others the note choice is more unusual. But none of them have bad time.

Ergo. Note choice is not terribly important.

It is not necessary to play interesting notes to be a great soloist. I mean there's only 12 of them anyway in the Western system, so it's a pretty limited set of resources. How hip do really think you are playing an F# on a C? It's like wearing a leather jacket and thinking you are the last thing in youthful rebellion.

The thing is note choice is a MASSIVE consideration for beginner to intermediate players. Note choice might feature in some advanced player's thinking, but it is not mandatory.

Playing over functional chord progressions is quite different from playing blues licks and modal improv - the sort of thing most guitar players are familiar with before they move to playing more traditional jazz material (I speak for myself here, but many others have a similar background.)

As a result, we need to spend some time getting used to play through things with rapidly changing chord progressions. Because of this note choice becomes a significant issue.

Because of that we become (and by we I mean me too) obsessed by choosing the good sounding notes. In fact, my argument is this, once you have got through the phase of being able to play fluently descriptively through the changes of a song (however you achieve this) this your mission to my mind is to achieve freedom and flexibility rhythmically. Think of a rhythm, now express it in a melody. Stop playing 8ths all the time (easier said than done.)

This will do more for your improvised line than learning more scales.

Needless to say most of find this easier to do on a modal vamp than on a functional harmony progression. All this means is that we don't know the chord tones (and the various rhythmic decorations involving neighbour tones) well enough.

This is what stevebol's Berklee link basically says.