Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Posts 501 to 550 of 998
  1. #501

    User Info Menu

    From the POV of classical theory that Eb7 chord would be seen as a Aug 6th in G minor - that means that instead of constructing it with a Db we use a C#.

    (This chord by the way was the default choice for harmonising degree 6 in a descending G minor scale.)

    If we make a scale using C# we get the so called G Hungarian Minor - (which Mancini used for the Pink Panther - BOOM!)

    G A Bb C# D Eb F#

    Which might be a fun choice for Gypsy tunes.... I think in traditional terms as with harmonic minor we would descend normally through G minor and then use C# to change direction...

    (e.g. G F Eb D C# Eb G etc)

    Works on Eb7, Eb7#11, and A7b5...

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #502

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    What is revealed when we look at a chart of a tune?

    There are the literal chord symbols be they streamlined or nuanced.
    Since harmony is sounded by the sum total of all notes played, it makes
    sense to integrate the melody to create a fuller harmonic conception.
    It is possible that melody notes + chord symbol may already indicate all or most of the notes of a scale/mode.
    When a given measure and chord only contains some of the scale notes, the melody notes in the adjacent measures
    can also be considered. Does this matter?

    What about chromatic notes in the melody?
    How are they to be understood? Are they notes approaching chord tones?
    Do they spring from a larger entity, an approach chord?
    Can that approach chord also be connected to a source scale?

    Making connections to the larger note collection of a scale, provides a larger pool of notes to interact with.
    The ear being the only true arbiter of what works when and what doesn't.


    Rhythmic language, motifs, melodic contours, poetic impressions, etc., also things to consider.
    Are we improvising on chord changes or on a composition?

    One way or another, we form a starting reference of the song.
    So what happens then?

    Is our starting reference the final word or can we also re-conceptualize in real time.
    Can designated targets be approached via different pathways?
    Can the harmony be streamlined, perhaps a whole approach to a cadence reduced to movements
    around a dominant pedal tone?


    When we play solo, there are many unique liberties that can be taken. When playing in a duo, trio, quartet, nonet, etc.,
    what are we inspired to/willing to risk integrating into the ensemble experience?
    Great post - thank you!

  4. #503

    User Info Menu

    In the field of my day job, I've always believed that, if somebody can't explain something in plain English, they probably don't understand it.

    Here's my take on Wine and Roses.

    Starts on F major. I start with F Ionian, but I know that it may sound good to use B, the #11, depending on the line. Usually, I wouldn't. I'd just sing a snippet of melody to myself and start there. I'd then try to develop the idea.

    Goes to Eb7. The melody contains a #11. Now, I don't have to use it during my solo, but it will sound more like the tune. So, the way I think, this would be Ab major (some will prefer Eb mixo) and raise the Ab to an A. That's as deeply as I would want to think on the bandstand. In the practice room, I might think V7 in Ab, but raise the Ab. Since raising the root of a major scale gives the melodic minor a step higher, I'd know I was playing Bb mel minor -- some would call it 4th mode, lydian dominant. Same notes.

    Now it goes to a D7 with some alterations. Looks like the G is going towards F#. The Eb is going towards D, or maybe staying on Eb. The A (#11 of Eb7) can stay an A or move a half step in either direction. The Db has to move (in fact, it may be the only note that needs to change right away); goes to C or D.

    So, whatever my original snippet of melody was, I know that if it contained the Eb7#11 chord tones, they're likely to move according to the preceding paragraph.

    I also will think that rest of the notes are going to move from Abmaj to Gmaj. There aren't many to worry about. If, for example, I played an F over the Eb7#11, I'm probably going to want to move it one or two half steps.

    Of course, this is post hoc analysis. On the bandstand, I start with my snippet of melody and develop it. I won't think about anything but the melody and the general feel of the harmony. The notes come by ear.

    But, back in the practice room, I've got to move from Ddominant-something to Gm7. I hear the chord movement at that point as Gm7 going up a b3 two bars later (where the Real Book says Bbm6).

    So I land on Gm which feels like a point of resolution, at least sort of. In any case I move whatever notes need to be changed from the Ddom to Gm. Which minor scale for Gm? I don't worry about the name. Not even in the practice room. I've got R 2 b3 4 5 b7. That's 6 notes. I need to figure out what to do about the 6th (I'll stay with b7 because the chord is Gm7) -- and I'll choose a 6 by ear. Which one depends on the melody. I will unconsciously avoid F# Ab B and Db, from experience that it's going to be hard to make the nat7, b9, maj3 and b5 sound right against Gm7.

    For the Bbm, I know I can repeat my melodic line up a b3, although it's likely to sound hackneyed.
    Automatically, I'm going to go for the Db. Later, I might analyze that that Bbm6, the chord in the chart, is Bb Db F G. And, 3 of those notes are in Gm7, so I can get the sound by moving D to Db.

    Which other notes?Well, I can see that the next chord is Eb7, which looks a lot like a ii V in Ab, so I'm probably going to lean towards notes from Ab major (This is residue from before I learned that there are names for modes -- I just think about the major scale with those notes). I'll be aware that it doesn't actually go to the Ab tonic. Rather it goes to an Am7.

    The move from Eb7 to Am7 involves several half steps down. Db to C, F to E, Bb to A. G stays the same.
    As for which other notes -- I'd probably start by thinking C maj. Even as I write this, I don't know if I'd go with the b6 or nat6, probably the latter, but it will be a choice by ear. It might not occur to me to play a G# (leading tone in both HM and MelMin) because the melody is a G, but it might. I learned, decades ago, that you can use notes a half step below a minor chord.

    Moving to Dm7 I'd probably just stay in C major. Again, I could pick a different 6th by ear.

    And so on.

    My thinking covers every note of the chromatic scale for every chord. Bear in mind, that I try to avoid patterns -- I comp and solo thinking about note names/intervals. If you know the names of the notes in the chords you're using and where they are on the neck, patterns are only helpful for speed situations.

    I'm left with the question: if I actually knew anything about CST, what might change?

  5. #504

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    I'm left with the question: if I actually knew anything about CST, what might change?
    Well, it sounds to me like you already do know a bit about it. But really, not much would change. You're still working with the same chords and more or less the same collection of notes. What would change, maybe, is the way you talk about it. If you practiced some CST-oriented exercises, you might find a sound you like that you wouldn't have found otherwise. Maybe.
    "I'm opposed to picketing, but I don't know to show it." --Mitch Hedberg

  6. #505

    User Info Menu


  7. #506

    User Info Menu

    Thanks, Boston Joe.

    There is always the issue of finding new sounds. I suspect that different people accomplish this in different ways. I can't really explain why, but I somehow find it much easier to learn a new sound when I am shown it up close and personal by another guitarist. It would probably be better if I could assimilate sounds as easily from a record or in a concert, but that's not what usually happens.

    I've also tried, many many times, to find new sounds from theoretical ideas or written materials. For some reason, that just doesn't work well.

    And, if I was on a hunt for new sounds, sitting in the practice room running through a list of possible chord progression vs scales would be the last thing I'd try, although I know others have done well with that. Rather, I'd just find something I like in a recording and copy it. Usually, when I do that, I find that the harmonic ideas aren't all that arcane, but the player has a gift for melody and rhythmic feel. I recall, for example, Jimmy Bruno playing Bb Ionian against Bbmaj7 and sounding terrific.

    I have solidified the use of some sounds by recalling that I can play an arp from one chord against a different chord. Common one is Gb7 against C7 (tritone). Another would be Dbm9 against C7. Gets an alt sound which works nicely if you're heading to Fmaj. If it's a different usage of the 7th chord, then you might go for a lydian dominant sound by playing any chord from Gmelmin that has an F#. I'd probably think Gminmaj to get some notes that make that sound. Mimi Fox has a nice discussion in her argeggios book and I'm always looking for more ideas of this type because they don't make my brain ache.

    I have wondered if players who don't know the names of the notes in their chords may find it necessary to think about patterns they identify by scale/mode name. So, that, for them CST keeps it simple. Maybe that's unfair. I actually don't know if most players know the notes in their chords or not. I do know that I have drilled myself endlessly to get that stuff automatic, so I'm not forced to play from shapes or patterns. And, even so, I still sometimes resort to patterns when the chord changes are coming thick and fast.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 11-28-2017 at 08:51 PM.

  8. #507

    User Info Menu

    Man...you guys really have a complicated view of Days of Wine.

    Here's how I hear it:


    Start in the key of F

    Long min ii-V into G-, using falling bass figure (Eb7 instead of Amin7b5)

    Jump up a min 3rd for a cool ii-V leading into Ab (essentially modulating from the key of F maj to the key of f min for a sec)

    But wait, chromaticism in the bass gets you into a long iii-VI-ii-V heading back to F

    But wait, let's do a windy little descending turnaround run of ii-Vs starting in the relative minor and leading you out and then back into the key of F with ii-Vs

    Let's do it all again but throw in an awesome swell to the classic min ii-V starting on the #iv and leading you back around the cycle.



    I guess I see how the CST you guys are talking about opens up more possible melodic lines and notes. I need to transcribe more modern jazz players. Do folks really just superimpose possible modes onto the chords like that?

    I just tend to think about it like a simple little composition using standard functional harmony. I can't really think of any tin pan alley tune I've run across that didn't lend itself to just thinking about basic functional harmony moving around through novel key patterns. It's just Bach with more key centers.

  9. #508

    User Info Menu

    By the way...

    about altered sound...

    we often - in this thread too - say it gives you an alt sound or something like that...

    But being more and more in scalar thing I began to distinct diofferent alt sound as different means... so like there is no alt sound for me from point of view of vocabulary (or semantics)...

    Even when I first came across the alt chord long ago - I thought that it is too vague.. it can be this and that...
    But I got that any variation of it brings in more or less the same feeling of alteration - and this is what's important.
    And it's very logical in functional tonality actually... alteres is jus altered and it functions like that.

    Now I see that it became more specified for me..

    And I think it's connected with more and more using chord and scales (CST) - workind with it... that made me hear these nuances more important... I would not even call altered know maybe... because they actuall are not)))

  10. #509

    User Info Menu

    Re: Wine and roses:

    - First I have to check if written chords make any sense in campfire version, that is, are those real chords of the tune, or some "Jazz" interpretation. I discover that in bar 2 I prefer A7 in place of Eb7, at least as preceding to Eb7, so to have A7 Eb7 Ab7 D7 sequence in bars 2 and 3.
    After discovery I do nothing with it, just keep it in mind as an option for further development. Eventually, it did lead me to the way of playing over the whole tune, but it's not the theme here.

    - Speaking from roots of the chords as proposed, what I found to sound satisfying:
    FMaj7: Lydian sound better ascending, Ionian descending
    Eb7: Lydian b7
    D7: Phrygian
    From about there I can not behave my self any more and just play what I always do, that is blues in various positions, inevitably producing all kinds of scales and modes, but I do not really care, or think about it.

    - The easiest way, of course, is to just play F major over everything. Fits nicely and gives altered sounds over proposed chords. Basically, I see that as if chords were altered to enable altered sounds without melody (solo) laving the key (tonal center) of F.

    - and so on ...
    ^ ^ ^
    <<< My BlogSpot Page >>>
    v v v

  11. #510

    User Info Menu

    It’s perfectly simple! (Writes ten paragraphs)

    There are a number of ways of looking at harmony. I see tunes like Days of Guns’n’Roses as essentially functional harmony and then if I want to do some other stuff I can use CST as an option.

    I think other people see everything as CST together including the functional stuff.

    The most useful theory book I have ever read was not a jazz book - it was the ABRSM grade 5-8 classical theory textbook. It taught me secondary dominants, leading tone diminished chords, Aug 6ths and borrowed minors among other things.

    Suddenly those standards made sense. Mark Levine didn’t do that for me.

  12. #511

    User Info Menu

    Chord Scale Theory is the opposite of:

    Arpeggio Stacking Theory.

    CST attempts to utilize Scales which can be used for improvising over any types of chords and progressions.

    Not necessarily played ' verbatim' as scales



    AST attempts to utilize Arpeggio Stacking Theory and Related Arpeggio Stacking ( including triads) for improvising over any types of chords and progressions.

    Not necessarily played ' verbatim' as Arpeggios.

    *AST is based directly upon Harmony and Composition and is the reason CST works and is how melodies and chords 'work ' and can also be used for Improvising and is under reported IMO.

    Also under-reported I never heard CST as a pitch collection before ( remembering that I am weak on Theory )- 'pitch collection' makes more sense to me.


    * I made up this Name.
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 11-29-2017 at 01:16 PM.

  13. #512

    User Info Menu

    What about CAT (Chord Arpeggio Theory)?

  14. #513

    User Info Menu

    Or ASS (Arpeggio Scale System) - as in

    'Hey man, do you want to develop into a better jazz improviser? Well come and study my ASS! With just a few months of study, you too can sound like ASS!'

  15. #514

    User Info Menu

    Yea anything works... if we're talking about playing at a gig with musicians, CST is just one of many organizations and set of guidelines that might help one hear the music, hear more possibilities. (more useful with composing and arranging).

    Again... I understand CST, because I understand Music theory and Harmony etc... I can use this information in real time. I don't get bogged down.... I can hear other players choices also. I can notate out or verbally create a 3 part head arrangement on stage. I can mechanically plug and play using different types of melodic and harmonic organization... and hear the differences.

    Just like contrapuntal voice leading, resolving tension with least amount of movement has history etc... generally when playing jazz, that practice is not how one plays. But being aware of practice will help create balance in some way.

    I could get into the vanilla thing....

    There are many ways to hear or understand music... and that relates to performance.

  16. #515

    User Info Menu

    I found Reg on youtube. He has made quite a number of videos!

    I began with Night and Day. Nice explanation of scale alternatives.

    Can anybody point me towards the best videos for an explanation of CST?

  17. #516

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    I found Reg on youtube. He has made quite a number of videos!

    I began with Night and Day. Nice explanation of scale alternatives.

    Can anybody point me towards the best videos for an explanation of CST?
    (Not my cup of tea, but... ) perhaps Gary Burton's jazz improvisation video on YouTube or his Berklee MOOC for Coursera:
    Jazz Improvisation | Coursera


  18. #517

    User Info Menu

    I really must get around to watching that

  19. #518

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    I really must get around to watching that
    I watched it.. it's nice to watch but seems very basic stuff ...

    One thing that I do not like about CST that it is much more abstract...
    If you take functional tonality ... you can teach actually without structurized terminology - just through music..
    I was taught that way... it's like learning native language... you go through turnarounds all the idiomatic things and you just use it correctly in a natural way without much thinking of rules and terminology...
    My teacher (who had all possible degrees and all) had even job problem as a professor with it because he never used traditional method and theory books... (it seems taht he did not even know about some)
    and I had the same problem when already being taught I occasionally opened a theory book and could not figure out what was that... it all seemed dissected and mixed up to me.

    In that sense in jazz guitar world.. from what I saw Peter Bernstein reminds me best about such a method... he does not seem to have any strictly elaborated structure... methodology.. but he always teaches with musical material.. always through real musical language.. through hearing... and seems to focus on some specific case more than on systematic things...
    But at the end it turns out that a few specific real musical cases had most of the things in it...

    He does not insist: this is a Dorian scale.. or this is tonic chord... he just says - you hear that sound? It's major 6th in mor chord .. hear how it works after that chor we had? Or is more minor in sound? How do you hear? Or... do you hear that tone more stable.. like we came back ok? call it tonic if you want.. but do you hear it stable?

    (But we should not forget that this way of teaching works only if student is deligent (or gifted) enough to cover technique and basic things on the instrument... these kind of teachers often skip these issues...)


    Why I thought about it?

    Functional tonality is absolutely self-sufficient.. you can work with it with a language (even without any terminology at all if yu like)

    and CST at least now looks to me as an applicable sysytem.. it should be applied to something to work...

    and the problem often is that people begin to think it is a lanaguage and seek for answers that it just cannot give.

  20. #519

    User Info Menu

    100% Jonah... Nail on head.

  21. #520

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    Why I thought about it?

    Functional tonality is absolutely self-sufficient.. you can work with it with a language (even without any terminology at all if yu like)

    and CST at least now looks to me as an applicable sysytem.. it should be applied to something to work...

    and the problem often is that people begin to think it is a lanaguage and seek for answers that it just cannot give.
    That's pretty much my take as well. It's more like the superstructure of a language. I think the tricky part for a student is that you can listen to the sounds of the various scales, but you also have to learn to hear those sounds as "not-scales." I don't think enough teachers point that out. One of the things I like about Levine's book is that he gives you an example with every scale, so you're not listening to scales played as scales.

    IOW, you can use scales to derive material, but they themselves are not material.
    "I'm opposed to picketing, but I don't know to show it." --Mitch Hedberg

  22. #521

    User Info Menu

    I think the tricky part for a student is that you can listen to the sounds of the various scales, but you also have to learn to hear those sounds as "not-scales."
    Yes.. I agree...

    To me.. hearing - let's say Dorian - in modern jazz context means just hearing min6 chord as a tonic chord... means you hear minor 3rd you hear major 6th and you really should hear the root as a stable tone where resolution... by the way is there really tension and resolution is another topic... to me it's more about repetition and rythm.. the root is repeated and stressed so you begin to hear it as stable note of the scale..
    so suppose he hears Dorian sound.

    What's next? What does it work for?

    If we take modal music... something like where we have Dorian sound for 8 bars than we have Lydian for 10 bars the Lydian transposed.. these scale-sounds have each their own character and they interact and make composition.. so they become meaningful elements of language...
    At least we should hear the root definitely...



    But if we play jazz standard and just run through ii-v-i... do I hear Dorian sound on ii? No. Most probably I hear VIIth of major as anticipation to V chord.. that is I head S-D-T cadence - or maybe extension of D-T cadence...
    Even if I hear Dorian occasionally in such a context.. it does not make any sence musically.

    I can use scale as a tool of course... like you can use MM to get altered sound... from point of view of language you get altered sound.
    Same thing with Dorian.. you can use Dorian scale if you want in ii-v but as a result you will have ii-v in major anyway ...

    Scales are good for many things... I like them as a good tool to explore the instrument, you really dig into teh instrument and fretboard if you're fluent with scales... it could be a tool for getting some 'other sound'.. like you play MM to get alt sound.. it's altered that actually works in music in this case not MM... etc.
    But almost always it's not directly music... it's like medium... like tip. (It's like playing ii-v as all ii or as all iv or as all v.. whatever.. some notes will show up in your line some not - but it will be major anyway... so it's more for your convinience of orientation etc.)

    As I said except modal music.. but this area is still very fresh undefined...

    Recently I heard Julian Lage play nice excercises: he took a scale and played it in 3 note voicings variating close-open position... any notes combination...
    Again it's vey cool for exploring the fretboard and for maybe gettin some unxpected colour or voicing ... I love it..

    But what struck me that though the notes belonged to the same scale and presunambly it should have given some commonality to all these 'triads'... I heard that I could actually hear them in any possible way I wanted... belonging to the same scale almost did not imply this commonality.

    And also it was interesting that he described 'close' as something like 4th interval and he limited it within octave... in trad harmony close is when it's nearest next tone in the triad... but obviously when you just take scale and any voicing there's no such thing as triad any more... even octave does not make really much importance... so what is close? everything can be close or open.. it becimes relative and arbitrary...

    Again I loved this excercise and I enjoyed doing this... but just like exploring sound and fretboard - I almost found nothing specific in these sounds that could be related to the scale they were derived from.

  23. #522

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    Yes.. I agree...
    Recently I heard Julian Lage play nice excercises: he took a scale and played it in 3 note voicings variating close-open position... any notes combination...
    Again it's vey cool for exploring the fretboard and for maybe gettin some unxpected colour or voicing ... I love it..

    But what struck me that though the notes belonged to the same scale and presunambly it should have given some commonality to all these 'triads'... I heard that I could actually hear them in any possible way I wanted... belonging to the same scale almost did not imply this commonality.

    And also it was interesting that he described 'close' as something like 4th interval and he limited it within octave... in trad harmony close is when it's nearest next tone in the triad... but obviously when you just take scale and any voicing there's no such thing as triad any more... even octave does not make really much importance... so what is close? everything can be close or open.. it becimes relative and arbitrary...

    Again I loved this excercise and I enjoyed doing this... but just like exploring sound and fretboard - I almost found nothing specific in these sounds that could be related to the scale they were derived from.
    Hey Jonah,

    Can you clarify, not quite understanding.

    When I listen to chords derived from a single scale, it always conjures up the sound of the scale to me.
    I'm not sure how it could do anything but that, given that the chords are made up entirely of scale tones.
    Are you saying that it's hard to hear a functional root progression?
    Thanks.

  24. #523

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    It’s perfectly simple! (Writes ten paragraphs)

    ...

    The most useful theory book I have ever read was not a jazz book - it was the ABRSM grade 5-8 classical theory textbook. It taught me secondary dominants, leading tone diminished chords, Aug 6ths and borrowed minors among other things.

    Suddenly those standards made sense. Mark Levine didn’t do that for me.
    This has been my experience. My classical textbook gave me the ability to understand music. I feel like most jazz stuff like Levine ends up being more of a compendium of cool tricks rather than a comprehensive theory.

    I mean the first thing Levine tells you is to just play a #11 over all maj 7 chords. I wish I could have the years of my life I spent doing that without knowing why back.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #524

    User Info Menu

    Apologies in advance for the rant-ish quality of the following.

    Umpteen posts over the years and reading various books and articles, and I still can't quite grasp what CST is. And, it isn't clear that the various posters who seem to know are actually in agreement about what it is.

    The posts which talk about it are often quite abstract, using jargon to refer to unspecified benefits. But, the musical examples so far haven't seemed esoteric at all. It seems to focus on recognizing that there are several options for each chord -- and that you pick one based on the chord progression (harmony) of the tune.

    Gary Burton, in the excellent video posted earlier, doesn't claim to give a full explanation of CST, but he does seem to touch on it. In the first part of the video he identifies 10 scales that he said cover 99% of the musical situations. These are 7 modes of major scale, two modes of melodic minor (lyd dom and alt) and diminished. He alluded to some others that are relevant in a minority of situations, but he didn't say what they were. (I was surprised that he didn't mention first or sixth modes of melodic minor).

    Then, he spoke to the issue of selecting which of the three minors by looking for clues in the melody of the tune or in the chords coming before and after.

    He said that this much gives you the notes you need to solo with, and he then moved on to discussing other aspects of creating a good solo.

    Absolutely clear and free of jargon. But, maybe there's more, I'm not finished with the video yet.

    I am reminded of a friend in an academic field dealing with a colleague who responded to every comment by suggesting a book or paper. Eventually, my friend asked, "Is there anyway we can have a discussion without me first having to read everything you've read?".

    My experience of jargon is that it's often obfuscatory. Eschew obfuscation.

  26. #525

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    Apologies in advance for the rant-ish quality of the following.

    Umpteen posts over the years and reading various books and articles, and I still can't quite grasp what CST is. And, it isn't clear that the various posters who seem to know are actually in agreement about what it is.

    The posts which talk about it are often quite abstract, using jargon to refer to unspecified benefits. But, the musical examples so far haven't seemed esoteric at all. It seems to focus on recognizing that there are several options for each chord -- and that you pick one based on the chord progression (harmony) of the tune.

    Gary Burton, in the excellent video posted earlier, doesn't claim to give a full explanation of CST, but he does seem to touch on it. In the first part of the video he identifies 10 scales that he said cover 99% of the musical situations. These are 7 modes of major scale, two modes of melodic minor (lyd dom and alt) and diminished. He alluded to some others that are relevant in a minority of situations, but he didn't say what they were. (I was surprised that he didn't mention first or sixth modes of melodic minor).
    Or the harmonic minor, which is everywhere in bebop.

    (Anyway, that's a common blind spot in post-modal jazz theory texts. Gary Burton could play bop better than I ever could at the age of 3 1/2 or something, so I'll let him off. TBH I'm not sure if he looked at that music that way. What he says about his own playing is very weird (I couldn't play like Milt Jackson, never transcribed) - well... maybe not, but....

    Gary Burton was a prodigy with perfect pitch. His process was always going to different... )

    Then, he spoke to the issue of selecting which of the three minors by looking for clues in the melody of the tune or in the chords coming before and after.

    He said that this much gives you the notes you need to solo with, and he then moved on to discussing other aspects of creating a good solo.

    Absolutely clear and free of jargon. But, maybe there's more, I'm not finished with the video yet.

    I am reminded of a friend in an academic field dealing with a colleague who responded to every comment by suggesting a book or paper. Eventually, my friend asked, "Is there anyway we can have a discussion without me first having to read everything you've read?".
    Ha! Good one

    My experience of jargon is that it's often obfuscatory. Eschew obfuscation.
    You a Feynman fan?

  27. #526

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Or the harmonic minor, which is everywhere in bebop.

    (Anyway, that's a common blind spot in post-modal jazz theory texts. Gary Burton could play bop better than I ever could at the age of 3 1/2 or something, so I'll let him off. TBH I'm not sure if he looked at that music that way. What he says about his own playing is very weird (I couldn't play like Milt Jackson, never transcribed) - well... maybe not, but....

    Gary Burton was a prodigy with perfect pitch. His process was always going to different... )



    Ha! Good one



    You a Feynman fan?
    I've read a couple of Feynman's books. He's someone I would have liked to have met. He certainly seemed to have the ability to explain complicated things simply. I would attribute that to depth of understanding of the material, understanding the listener and being willing to make things clear.

    What is interesting about Gary Burton's 10 scales is that he is talking about jazz in general, not just his own playing. Or at least, that's how it's presented. So he is saying that all the scales he didn't list, which include HM, are involved in just 1% of soloing. It would be interesting to ask him to comment on this further.

    Presumably, this is based on his listening experience.

    I was surprised, since I use first and 6th modes melodic minor frequently, as options for tonic minor and m7b5, respectively.

    But, the point is still about defining CST. Did he do it? Or is there a lot more? He did, after all, explain scale options for various chords and he did address how to decide which scale to associate with the chord in a given situation. If there's more, I'd like to hear the rest explained with this level of clarity.

  28. #527

    User Info Menu

    Scales are organized repositories of harmonic and melodic data.This is a mathematical fact.
    Some of these scales have significant musical presence in the musical history of many styles.
    This does not mean to say that just playing combinations of notes drawn from such scales is sufficient
    to execute any such styles. This we learn by studying the masterworks of and by playing in the style.

    CST is at times presented from a chord of the moment perspective, with a use this note collection recommendation
    Removing context can at times be helpful when studying info that is overwhelming but is a poor representation of
    reality. This comes from that and then goes there and then......etc. This is true more often than not.

    Some teachers extract what they deem as the useful modes, sounds practical on the surface.
    For me, once I commit to learning a scale, I want to know all of what's in there, good, bad and even ugly.
    I feel I would be creating structural blindspots to do otherwise.

  29. #528

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    Hey Jonah,

    Can you clarify, not quite understanding.

    When I listen to chords derived from a single scale, it always conjures up the sound of the scale to me.
    I'm not sure how it could do anything but that, given that the chords are made up entirely of scale tones.
    Are you saying that it's hard to hear a functional root progression?
    Thanks.
    For example basic scale is G Dorian

    and chords are G-Bb-D... and C-E-G - if you play them together or concequently you can defiitely hear Dorian sound right? Because we have all here: G can be heard as root, Bb minor triad... E in the next chord major 6th...
    Rvrn though they are triads I hear them here as Dorian sound

    but now take D-G-C or A-D-F for example - it has no specific Dorian sound though the notes fit Dorian...



    F-G-Bb is it Ab Ionian? or G Dorian? or Eb major?
    And if we take Ab Ionian as basic scale it maybe even more messy to hearing..

    the reference of all the scale to major (or minor) is a question for me too.. why being quite independent in certain context they immidiately lose this identity once they are in majow or minor?
    Do Ionian and Aeolian have characterectic pitches? The scales seem to be inversions of each other because we have equal temperance (in early music modality for exaple it was not like that due to mean temperance)...

    Tha's all open questions for which I think is true since this kind of music is quite young...

    Of course context rules.. always... what makes a context is another question... what will be enough to make contextual reference to certain scale?

  30. #529

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    I've read a couple of Feynman's books. He's someone I would have liked to have met. He certainly seemed to have the ability to explain complicated things simply. I would attribute that to depth of understanding of the material, understanding the listener and being willing to make things clear.

    What is interesting about Gary Burton's 10 scales is that he is talking about jazz in general, not just his own playing. Or at least, that's how it's presented. So he is saying that all the scales he didn't list, which include HM, are involved in just 1% of soloing. It would be interesting to ask him to comment on this further.

    Presumably, this is based on his listening experience.

    I was surprised, since I use first and 6th modes melodic minor frequently, as options for tonic minor and m7b5, respectively.

    But, the point is still about defining CST. Did he do it? Or is there a lot more? He did, after all, explain scale options for various chords and he did address how to decide which scale to associate with the chord in a given situation. If there's more, I'd like to hear the rest explained with this level of clarity.
    Otoh you can quite happily play bebop without really using the altered scale.

    I’m sure I could dig out whole bop solos that don’t feature this sound, not to mention swing era stuff.

    So I have to say I think Burton is wrong. Unless he is talking about contemporary jazz perhaps, which is largely influenced by his teachings.

    I find it odd when (usually famous) educators make these pronouncements, but a lot of them haven’t gone deep into the history. There’s actually quite a lot of demonstrably erroneous info out there.

    The odd thing tho is while Burton claims not to have ever been able to play like Milt Jackson and claims it to transcribe, he did clearly have a great command of jazz early on, functional changes jazz and bebop. I wonder if this wasn’t completely by ear.

  31. #530

    User Info Menu

    A quick listen to this though:



    Sounds like Burton might not be using the harmonic minor option on VI7b9 the way most boppers would have done it.

    I’d need to listen closer possibly transcribe. It sounds like he is using a scalic approach in someways.

    But it’s completely bebop at the same time...

    Amazing really

  32. #531

    User Info Menu

    Jonah,

    Ok, thanks, I see your point.
    But the same would be true also for any melody fragments that present incomplete scale info.

    F-G-Bb on the surface is Gm7/Bbma6 but the next note could reveal that it is really Gm7b5/Bbm6 in F minor.
    The same could be true for C-E-G, seemingly sounds in C major, but can also be in F minor.

    Incomplete info yields guesswork analysis.

  33. #532

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    Jonah,

    Ok, thanks, I see your point.
    But the same would be true also for any melody fragments that present incomplete scale info.

    F-G-Bb on the surface is Gm7/Bbma6 but the next note could reveal that it is really Gm7b5/Bbm6 in F minor.
    The same could be true for C-E-G, seemingly sounds in C major, but can also be in F minor.

    Incomplete info yields guesswork analysis.
    Yes of course... but I mostly talked about degree of this self-sufficience...

    It's not quite guesswork with functional tonality

    If we're in the world of classical tonality and we hear c-e-g-c chord... what we definitely hear that it is a major triad... what is contexstual? Function and key.. it could be I of c major, IV of G major or V of F major...
    But this is already a lot of information within this system...
    The reference of identity is very specific.

    To my sense that is what's making it a language... it has potentials for extremely complex means of expression... as 400 years of music shows... but at the same time its elements are very specific, whith all ambiguity their portencils use can be clearly seen... even if there are many options.


    With scales- at least in modern CST - it's like it can be almost anything...

  34. #533

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... a voice (one's own, or that of a subculture).

  35. #534

    User Info Menu

    I don't really understand why... when one doesn't like or want to understand something... they keep trying. Let it go... you don't need CST. You'll still be able to play jazz.

    If you don't have an understanding of traditional Music theory, harmony, counterpoint... all the basics. You really shouldn't waste your time with CST. It not an answer... it's just a collection of possibilities of how to look,(and hear), the same classic understandings. Same 12 notes.

    And if your trying to translate this information to your playing... the guitar. It doesn't just happen. You need to be able to play first. This would be the same for singing... you need to have your vocal skills together first. But we're on a jazz guitar sight... so in general I'll stay with the guitar as reference.

    Much more info. than needed has been posted on just this thread.... to get or understand the goal of CST. If one doesn't understand.... give it up... there are different reasons for not understanding.... Don't waste your time and energy. Take what you like and move on.

  36. #535

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by destinytot View Post
    CST is the opposite of... a voice (one's own, or that of a subculture).
    Come on... that has nothng to do with having or not having one's own voice.

    My opinions here are the attempt to understand that more musically - to analyze maybe a bit deeper - to see prospective of it... I dont doubt if I have to study it or not.

    In my opinion... studying or not shold not be a question... it's not a question when you already achived what you needed without this...

    But I never could understand a question: should I study that or should I study this... is it the opposite of that etc.

    Those who don't ask these questions - they have some privilge because they can decide no their own...


    If you come to a point where you question it.. that means you should study it.

    There are no short cuts in arts... I do not even understand why would anyone want to cut short the road that is so interesting to walk...

  37. #536

    User Info Menu

    Problem started with the thread title itself, really.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Jazz is like life...it goes on longer than you think, and as soon as you're like 'oh, I get it,' it ends."

    --The Ghost of Duke Ellington

  38. #537

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    There are no short cuts in arts... I do not even understand why would anyone want to cut short the road that is so interesting to walk...
    Too true!

    Of course there are those that argue that CST itself is a short cut.



    Discuss

    (TBH I think being Gary Burton is the only valid shortcut for music.)

  39. #538

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    Come on... that has nothng to do with having or not having one's own voice.
    Come on... 'having' has nothing to do with my comment:
    CST is the opposite of... a voice (one's own, or that of a subculture).

  40. #539

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... a gateway to ecstasy.

  41. #540

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    It not an answer... it's just a collection of possibilities of how to look,(and hear), the same classic understandings. Same 12 notes.
    Yeah, this I think is the crucial nugget.

    So, in another thread we were talking about "ah hah!" moments. A big one for me was when I realized that the major difference between "jazz theory" and "classical theory" was that classical theory tends to want to find a single explanation for a musical thing, for jazz, it's better to have multiple ways to look at a given musical situation. I tend to see CST as one of those multiple ways. Not the only one. Sometimes a good one, and sometimes not, depending on the situation.
    "I'm opposed to picketing, but I don't know to show it." --Mitch Hedberg

  42. #541

    User Info Menu

    The importance of study is obvious, but the proper object of study is not - especially when 'study' becomes a refuge in itself.

    CST is the opposite of... "Kill the Buddha."

  43. #542

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    Apologies in advance for the rant-ish quality of the following.

    Umpteen posts over the years and reading various books and articles, and I still can't quite grasp what CST is. And, it isn't clear that the various posters who seem to know are actually in agreement about what it is.

    The posts which talk about it are often quite abstract, using jargon to refer to unspecified benefits. But, the musical examples so far haven't seemed esoteric at all. It seems to focus on recognizing that there are several options for each chord -- and that you pick one based on the chord progression (harmony) of the tune.

    Gary Burton, in the excellent video posted earlier, doesn't claim to give a full explanation of CST, but he does seem to touch on it. In the first part of the video he identifies 10 scales that he said cover 99% of the musical situations. These are 7 modes of major scale, two modes of melodic minor (lyd dom and alt) and diminished. He alluded to some others that are relevant in a minority of situations, but he didn't say what they were. (I was surprised that he didn't mention first or sixth modes of melodic minor).

    Then, he spoke to the issue of selecting which of the three minors by looking for clues in the melody of the tune or in the chords coming before and after.

    He said that this much gives you the notes you need to solo with, and he then moved on to discussing other aspects of creating a good solo.

    Absolutely clear and free of jargon. But, maybe there's more, I'm not finished with the video yet.

    I am reminded of a friend in an academic field dealing with a colleague who responded to every comment by suggesting a book or paper. Eventually, my friend asked, "Is there anyway we can have a discussion without me first having to read everything you've read?".

    My experience of jargon is that it's often obfuscatory. Eschew obfuscation.
    I think this is the crux of the "problem" with CST -- different people mean different things, with differing degrees of prescriptiveness when they use the term. So, especially in online discussions, you wind up with people talking past each other. People really should start any discussion of this topic with what they mean by it, especially indicating whether they think it's a blue print for what you should play vs a way of analyzing what you did play. You also have the more basic problem that so many people who write can't actually write, so that there's tons of published (and posted) material that's little more than gobbledygook larded with big words that don't actually mean what the authors think they do.

    John

  44. #543

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A. View Post
    You also have the more basic problem that so many people who write can't actually write, so that there's tons of published (and posted) material that's little more than gobbledygook larded with big words that don't actually mean what the authors think they do.
    I write for a living. Welcome to my personal hell.
    "I'm opposed to picketing, but I don't know to show it." --Mitch Hedberg

  45. #544

    User Info Menu

    (Personally I can't really see CST as a shortcut to anything, as it seems much more complicated than the technique of melodic embellishment suggested by Galper among others.)

  46. #545

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A. View Post
    I think this is the crux of the "problem" with CST -- different people mean different things, with differing degrees of prescriptiveness when they use the term. So, especially in online discussions, you wind up with people talking past each other. People really should start any discussion of this topic with what they mean by it, especially indicating whether they think it's a blue print for what you should play vs a way of analyzing what you did play. You also have the more basic problem that so many people who write can't actually write, so that there's tons of published (and posted) material that's little more than gobbledygook larded with big words that don't actually mean what the authors think they do.

    John
    TBF you aren't going to learn how to play jazz hanging out here.

  47. #546

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    TBF you aren't going to learn how to play jazz hanging out here.
    I hang out here to pass the time, avoid work, entertain myself, and check out other people's music and links. Learning is reserved for the practice room and bandstand.

    John

  48. #547

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... this:


  49. #548

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... sa da tay.

  50. #549

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A. View Post
    I hang out here to pass the time, avoid work, entertain myself, and check out other people's music and links. Learning is reserved for the practice room and bandstand.

    John
    I meant ‘you’ as in ‘one’

  51. #550

    User Info Menu

    So, in another thread we were talking about "ah hah!" moments. A big one for me was when I realized that the major difference between "jazz theory" and "classical theory" was that classical theory tends to want to find a single explanation for a musical thing, for jazz, it's better to have multiple ways to look at a given musical situation. I tend to see CST as one of those multiple ways. Not the only one. Sometimes a good one, and sometimes not, depending on the situation.
    For me this 'ah hah' was that classical theory is about explaining the final result in music... the one that we listen to...

    And jazz theory is more about explainig approaches - what to do to achieve this or that... it's practical theory.

    that's why I often met misunderstanding with classical musiclogists... they just could not get all this mess that was called jazz theory - especially when what they heard on the recored seemed to fit perfectly their common classical system...

    By the way I had an intersting experience - discussion about what improvization is...
    I noticed that jazz players I talked mostly spoke about intention... if the player wants to improvize or not... etc. if he really does or not...
    And I was talking about what listener takes as an improvization... meaning what makes music sound like improvized.. there are lots of written pieces that sound like improvization.. and improvized that sound like written out... so how does the listener know? And does it really matter? In jazz it does...
    to me it's very interesting topic.. actually I think that's what makes jazz elitist's music... you should play or at least understand general jazz player's logics well otherwise you hear only nice arrange,emt in jazz style

    To me this clearly shows the difference between two types of analyzes...
    jazz theory tries to find out what's the player's tool behind the music...
    Classical does not care about it... it only explains the logics of music as it sounds.