Chief criticisms - Chord Scale Theory

**fumblefingers** · 05-31-2015, 04:45 PM

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.

**vintagelove** · 05-31-2015, 04:52 PM

It can sound like your playing scales is probably the biggest criticism.

second, most of the pioneers of jazz, did not think about it like that. They thought in chord tones and chromatics.

in my own opinion, it can prevent a player from hearing the entire key center, especially when there is no I chord present (think descending ii v's).

with that being said, it's also really useful. Things like MM modes, wt scale vocabulary etc etc.

so ultimately it depends on what style you want to sound like. However imo, you need to know both approaches.

i prefer teaching without it to start. Ymmv.

**pamosmusic** · 05-31-2015, 05:43 PM

The focus on scales as your primary means of figuring lines sort of implies a lack of focus on transcriptions and lines.

its also stylistically limiting. That sort of idea really to me is a decent explanation of what Coltrane was doing for a short time in miles band and shortly thereafter. So the first implication is that guys at that time playing that sort of way seemed to be using at as a means to get elsewhere, not an end itself and the idea doesn't seem an accurate description of their earlier playing or their later playing but rather a snapshot. The second is that it's a terrible description for bebop playing which - to my ear and understanding - is very chord based, blues driven, and has a huge amount of characteristic vocabulary (at least when referring to note choice).

the last thing is a practical one. When you're playing - say - a Dmin7 chord the typical chord-scale choice would be D Dorian mode. D E F G A B C D ... but what are the truly stable notes of that chord? D F A - probably C. What are the really beautiful color notes of that chord? E G B ... So if you're trying to hit the colorful notes in a chord then less than half of your pitch collection really qualifies. If you try to voicelead through chord scales (start low and move to high and navigate changes by switching chord scales with the appropriate chords) you'll find that you can go through entire chord changes without really getting to some of the most colorful notes. When you do hit them they might fall in weird places in the line. They'll probably fall wedged between two more stable notes so that they sound more like passing notes - meaning that they sound like after thoughts to the more stable notes. Another example is something like the first line of Sentimental Mood - chord scales can run back and forth without ever providing any distinction between the various chords because only one note changes at a time. Or a ii-V ... You could switch chords with the chord scale and never make any distinction between the two. Thinking with chords and knowing which arpeggios and chords give you which chord tones gives a person the means to be far more harmonically specific and keeps them in the drivers seat in that respect.

Theres always going to be the argument that anyone who uses any method of visualizing or organizing the changes should ideally get to a place where they can do all those things anyway which is true. It just seems that the emphasis of CST is a little counter productive.

**vintagelove** · 05-31-2015, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by pamosmusic

The focus on scales as your primary means of figuring lines sort of implies a lack of focus on transcriptions and lines.

its also stylistically limiting. That sort of idea really to me is a decent explanation of what Coltrane was doing for a short time in miles band and shortly thereafter. So the first implication is that guys at that time playing that sort of way seemed to be using at as a means to get elsewhere, not an end itself and the idea doesn't seem an accurate description of their earlier playing or their later playing but rather a snapshot. The second is that it's a terrible description for bebop playing which - to my ear and understanding - is very chord based, blues driven, and has a huge amount of characteristic vocabulary (at least when referring to note choice).

the last thing is a practical one. When you're playing - say - a Dmin7 chord the typical chord-scale choice would be D Dorian mode. D E F G A B C D ... but what are the truly stable notes of that chord? D F A - probably C. What are the really beautiful color notes of that chord? E G B ... So if you're trying to hit the colorful notes in a chord then less than half of your pitch collection really qualifies. If you try to voicelead through chord scales (start low and move to high and navigate changes by switching chord scales with the appropriate chords) you'll find that you can go through entire chord changes without really getting to some of the most colorful notes. When you do hit them they might fall in weird places in the line. They'll probably fall wedged between two more stable notes so that they sound more like passing notes - meaning that they sound like after thoughts to the more stable notes. Another example is something like the first line of Sentimental Mood - chord scales can run back and forth without ever providing any distinction between the various chords because only one note changes at a time. Or a ii-V ... You could switch chords with the chord scale and never make any distinction between the two. Thinking with chords and knowing which arpeggios and chords give you which chord tones gives a person the means to be far more harmonically specific and keeps them in the drivers seat in that respect.

Theres always going to be the argument that anyone who uses any method of visualizing or organizing the changes should ideally get to a place where they can do all those things anyway which is true. It just seems that the emphasis of CST is a little counter productive.

Now couple that with ii v's moving very fast, two per bar, and your really in trouble.

**JonR** · 05-31-2015, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

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.

You could start here:

Here's another:
MTO 6.1: Rawlins, Review of Levine

**fumblefingers** · 05-31-2015, 08:54 PM

thanks gang.

**pkirk** · 05-31-2015, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

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.

doesn't work for bebop, which is usually the first goal and frequently the only goal. The criticism comes both from students ("I know all my scales but don't sound like clifford brown") and from practitioners ("He's trying to play bop but it sounds like he's just playing scales") For styles beyond bop, criticism of CST typically wanes, as addressing more abstract/advanced harmony requires some command of CST typically.

**fumblefingers** · 05-31-2015, 10:45 PM

Hmmm. I thought that it was just a theory about harmony, not a guide for how to approach improvisation, and certainly not a philosophical prejudice against playing arpeggios or bebop vocab.

ill have to read a little bit more.

**mr. beaumont** · 05-31-2015, 10:47 PM

It's a visualization system.

If it sounds like you're playing scales, YOU suck, not CST.

**pkirk** · 05-31-2015, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

It's a visualization system.

If it sounds like you're playing scales, YOU suck, not CST.

I agree, but the question was what are the criticisms leveled at it.

**Cunamara** · 06-01-2015, 12:54 AM

The biggest criticisms of mine are that (1) CST can have a tendency to be flabby in terms of tension and resolution- it sounds floaty and noodly if not combined with a good ear- and (2) even if it resolves it often doesn't sound like music, it sounds like a set of scales applied using a set of rules. Some make it work well. Players who have developed a good ear and good time can make any approach work well and sound good.

**Jonzo** · 06-01-2015, 02:04 AM

For me, it's just too much to think about an entire scale for each chord. I think about chord tones, and the notes in between seem to take care of themselves. But that's just me. If my brain could handle more information I might be down with CST.

There are a lot of ways to familiarize yourself with those in between notes: transcription, experimentation, and chord scales too. You can decide for yourself which would give you the most musical sounding results. For some people knowing CST might help them with their experimentation and transcription, because it tells you the notes that are likely to work.

**targuit** · 06-01-2015, 02:05 AM

My feeling about CST in terms of criticisms is that it posits that you cannot HEAR the difference between the fundamental chord tones like 1, 3, 5, 7, and extensions versus chromatic notes. You need a defined pool of 'good' notes, ignoring the fact that various scale types involve lowering or raising a specific interval. It is like you need those old "paint by numbers" type blueprint to be a painter rather than using your eyes and visual sensibility to create a painting.

Hal Galper demonstrated the defects of that approach to improvisation better than anyone I've seen or heard. I would add that last night I watched a Jimmy Bruno instructional segment regarding his thinking about scales. And Jimmy stressed the importance of learning the diatonic scales, but clearly stated that he draws the line about even thinking in terms of "melodic minor" scales versus other minor scales because it gets "too complicated". Then he proceeds to demonstrate correctly how chromatic tones not in the chord scale can be used as approach and embellishments to "jazzify" a melody phrase. It is more about how you resolve a tone in a phrase. You don't need permission to play a note - you need to hear where it is coming from and where it is going in a coherent and artistic manner. There are twelve notes in the Western scale - all of them are valid if you know how to use them.

TH · 06-01-2015, 05:07 AM

My own criticism would come from that fact that it's a far reaching system and a huge number of students (and players) are just not suited, aesthetically or in commitment, to realizing the potential.
In short, it's too expansive. As a result, people who don't take it upon themselves to find an individual application of this way of thinking can wind up revealing their own limitations in imagination. They all sound like someone running notes by the book, which they are.
It takes too long to master.

For those who "get it" it's another story completely, but that's not your question, I know.
David

**JensL** · 06-01-2015, 05:16 AM

Maybe I don't know CST, but from the way I understand it, the problem is that it is not taking the key and the context into account, so you might get really weird scale choices because you don't understand why that chord is in that place in the song.

Jens

**Jonah** · 06-01-2015, 06:34 AM

1) It should have been real theory for certain music... but being popularized and used as universal routine method it became neither real theory nor real clear and practical method

2) it really works only for modal music with it's logics based vast harmonic spaces, on perception each single chord as self-sufficint musical world... this effects also how the chords are connected and related.

3) mostly it does not work in many other musics - not because chords go too fast but becasue they do not have so much meaning separately - chenges are much more important - you need a tool to think on the level of changes not single chords mostly... you need kind of scale to go through changes.
In these cases rudimental applying CTS leads to fragmentary thinking and playing that should be usually overcome in time with confusion (the book does not say how usually)

4) it has nothing about phrasing... I mean essentially.. it gives just pocket of notes, no relations... nothing
(How can I connect lines? You chould have played not lines but phrases)

5) it is often explained in a strange way as theory - Dm7 chord has only four tones in common with Dorian scale and it does not contain characterictic Dorian 6th. So idea of such an association looks very arbitrary... at least if you have ears and some logical tool as basic qualities of musical theory.

IMHO the best way to explain it is to use 13th chords that contain all the scale notes... this leads to the first point - it could really be real theory for the music based on other laws and principles if it were not treated as univeral practical method....

Also my opinion - rudimental connection with major/minor scales holds its development as a theory.... actually if you think in terms of 13th chords you do not need any major/minor as relative starting point

**pamosmusic** · 06-01-2015, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

Hmmm. I thought that it was just a theory about harmony, not a guide for how to approach improvisation, and certainly not a philosophical prejudice against playing arpeggios or bebop vocab.

ill have to read a little bit more.

Youre right on all counts as is Mr. B but - just like any other theoretical approach - the emphasis it places on particular ideas (scales of course) has implications for actual playing and in this case it runs contrary to what a lot of people regard as the baseline skill for playing jazz - hitting changes. I also agree with pkirk when he says the criticism wanes as you move away from bebop but bebop is still the "common practice" jazz.

**fumblefingers** · 06-01-2015, 08:59 AM

i hear ya pamo.

another curiosity please - what are some of the sources of CST that people are referring to here? is there a seminal text or "CST Bible", so to speak? or are people describing their personal interpretations of something they heard from a friend who heard it from a friend and so on?

**mr. beaumont** · 06-01-2015, 09:17 AM

I think that's the big issue, really, when people try to force it to apply to situations where it doesn't make sense. Gives the whole idea a bad name, really.

ii V I, thinking Dorian, Mixolydian, Ionian-- ridiculous.

A chart for Shorter's "Nefertiti?" Very helpful.

Fumble, I'd say the CST Bible is probably Levine's Jazz Theory Book.

**Jonah** · 06-01-2015, 09:31 AM

Fumble, I'd say the CST Bible is probably Levine's Jazz Theory Book.

I agree that's most often reffered to .. but the it describes it is the most misleading imho..

In this book it looks absolutely arbitrary...

**mr. beaumont** · 06-01-2015, 09:53 AM

I'm not really sure I'd agree...there's literally hundreds of musical examples...that kind of takes the arbitrary out.

**bako** · 06-01-2015, 09:54 AM

I didn't know from the expression Chord Scale Theory until recently.
I learned to look at the harmonic implications of note collections.
A 7 note scale scale is a linear vantage point of a 13th chord.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On to criticism:

All mechanical organizational systems have the potential to sound mechanical when played that way.
This is not the fault of the system.

The best way to learn style is through a detailed examination of the works of the creators and finest practitioners
of that style. It is a mistake to think that a style can be realized solely through a method.

An over focus on harmony can obscure the importance of the temporal aspect of the music called rhythm.

While modes do an excellent job of addressing various combinations of tensions and chord colors,
there are ways of moving chromatically that are beyond the scope of any one scale.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

second, most of the pioneers of jazz, did not think about it like that.
They thought in chord tones and chromatics.

This gets said with great frequency around here.
Vintagelove or anyone else willing to share direct quotes from jazz pioneers detailing that they thought this way.

**pamosmusic** · 06-01-2015, 09:57 AM

Yea ... Good applications of chord scale theory would involve using modes to determine all those same overlapping chord substitutions and upper structures and stuff. It shouldn't be running scales but when it's applied poorly it can be just running scales. Since beginners by their very nature don't apply things well or completely it can lead to a weird understanding of how to approach improvising over changes

**JonR** · 06-01-2015, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by bako

All mechanical organizational systems have the potential to sound mechanical when played that way.
This is not the fault of the system.

True.

Originally Posted by bako

The best way to learn style is through a detailed examination of the works of the creators and finest practitioners
of that style. It is a mistake to think that a style can be realized solely through a method.

Also true.

The problem - as mentioned above - is really not with CST, but either in how it's taught, and/or people assuming it means more than it does, or has universal application.

It's not really relevant to pre-modal jazz: basically anything pre-1959. That was quite a long time ago, of course

, but most beginners learning jazz do start with jazz of that vintage. And it's quite easy to come across teaching material on CST or modes - which can (to the naive) sound like cool methods, or even shortcuts, but are both totally irrelevant in that context. Worse than useless (because they distract from what matters).

It's a theory developed to apply to post-modal jazz, where individual chords can (and often should) be considered as tonal systems in their own right, with no functional connection to chords either side. The modal concept actually began, in part, as a revolution against functional harmony. So to connect it to (say) the old ii-V-I is to misunderstand both kinds of harmony, as well as to apply something complicated to something quite simple. (It's as if, after the invention of the automobile, someone thought it would be a cool idea to put wheels on a horse....)

However, even in post-1959 jazz, it needs to be combined with an understanding of melody and rhythm, which remain as crucial as they always were. And a lot of post-modal jazz does indeed have connections between chords, even though the voice-leading may not be the old-fashioned kind. One is only seeing half the picture (at most) if one focuses on each chord as a separate entity. When someone like Wayne Shorter strings a load of chords together, he doesn't do so randomly. The links are worth looking at.

**Jonah** · 06-01-2015, 10:18 AM

I'm not really sure I'd agree...there's literally hundreds of musical examples...that kind of takes the arbitrary out.

Probably you're right.... I actually came to understanding/hearing from playing...

But the theoretical explanation Levine gives left me confused those days... like 'we take major scale (ok) then we harmonize basses with 7th chords (ok) then it comes out that we have Ion for Cmaj7, Dor for Dm7 etc and here I asked why?... and he did not give the answer...

the idea of using scales within the key could hardly be solid background for theory... as conventional method probably.. but not real theory.

If he explained it with 13th chord as I suggest it would have been much more solid and clear... you just have complete chord built of triads - and you have scale when these chord notes are put in order ... no need of these major/melodic minor etc.
But of course then it would be much more difficult to analyse Blue Moon with such theory.. it would work for the music it really describes