-
Lots to take in here...lots of misinformation about CST too.
Anybody who assumes it's just a prescription for "what notes to play on a chord" should refrain from posting about it, though.
-
11-26-2017 04:15 PM
-
Well, careful observation teaches not only what to do - but also what not to do.
Prospect Jonathan Pryce has become a mark targeted by smooth salesman Pacino, who lures his prey through subtle coercive moral manipulation:
-
Good question stems for prompting discussion on this:
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
To play Devil's advocate though, what exactly IS it? Not some wordy guff about organising vertical relationships yadda yadda (WTF does that mean?) or 'go read this textbook.' Give an exact example of how you would use it your music. I could do the same. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
(Not aimed at Reg cos he has a whole channel of that stuff.)
I think a lot of JGO type questions are based around what notes to play on what chord because that's the scariest thing about jazz coming from a rock background. IMO if you spend enough time properly learning to play basic chord tones on tune, the question ceases to be terribly important, because the question starts to be .... OK and now what?
-
I'm not sure that's true. Originally Posted by Irez87
The 'parent' here models 'language'. I don't think this implies 'mentoring' (or, for that matter, the purchase of yet another book).
On the contrary, it implies learner autonomy (and not infantilisation).
And if a live model is not an option, audio and video of a 'language parent' will suffice.
Hardly new.
-
I have now read about half of Nettles and Graf and I skimmed the rest of it.
CST seems to be one of those things that, when you ask somebody what it is, they'll often answer by telling you what it is not. And, discussions about the material quickly devolve into what seem to be neologisms -- meaning a term somebody makes up for their own use -- and even Google can't tell you what it means.
Near as I can tell, N&G explains two things. First, when you see a chord, it naturally includes some extensions (as if you were making every chord into a 13th, more or less), and which extensions depend on the harmonic context. Second, they provide detail on common progressions with various (historical/theoretical) explanations, including chord substitution.
Explanations are given with what I hope is the maximum possible amount of jargon. Maybe if I had read everything on the Summer Prerequisite Reading List, I'd have been able to make sense of it. That sounds like sarcasm (and maybe it is) but it's also probably true. Some good players swear by this stuff.
Further, I don't think there was a single adequate example of how the material is applied, fully, in a jazz context. There were some fragments. In contrast, Mark Levine's Jazz Theory is filled with examples from recordings of related concepts.
So, is this CST, or must I read another jargon-filled tome?
I still end up thinking that it might be nice to master this book, but, as a practical matter, it seems like the long way around to the goal. Even if I learned everything in the book, I'd be lucky to include a few more interesting note choices in the same old rhythm and jazz vocabulary.
What am I missing?
-
Good idea. I'll try to cliff notes it, I don't like posting long. Originally Posted by christianm77
I'll report back tonight.
-
I wondered about that myself a few years ago, and bought a couple of books - one of which (a PDF entitled Chord-Scale Theory and Linear Harmony for Guitar: Creative Tools for Improvisation and Composition in Contemporary Music) is written and organised sufficiently well to satisfy curiosity and be digested in one sitting. Originally Posted by christianm77
I'm inclined to lump all theory into a box marked 'Stuff That's Useful' - because, beyond their respective handles, I now find the distinctions between one proprietary system and another pretty spurious.
I have no serious objection to the silly nomenclature of any system. In fact, I rather enjoy it - although I do tend to come up with my own ways of naming and classifying to help with retention.
(I daresay even my young daughter is beginning use CST - playing triads with good voice-leading and inversions, while singing Girls Just Want To Have Fun and her own humorous lyrics to Hoochie Coochie Man.)
As I'm increasingly fond of saying, "Understanding is the booby prize" - whereas the ability to apply and synthesise what has been inferred from listening is obviously a valuable skill to possess.
And in that regard, I think CST is a bit like measuring with a ruler: an essential tool when precision is required, but otherwise unnecessary - because a thumb will do just as well.
-
Or, it's the idea that, at any given point in a tune, the COM (chord of the moment) actually includes some notes that are often not explicitly stated in the chord symbol. Those extra notes depend both on the chord and the chord progression (to use a simpler term than than "harmonic organization" or something).
So, that Dm7 G7 Cmaj is actually likely to be Dm13, G13, Cmaj13. It isn't clear to me, even after having skimmed Nettles and Graf, how CST determines which notes are to be emphasized (like R 3 5 7) vs avoided (like the B in Dm13, if it's a ii V I in C).
CST also makes predictions (or maybe just post-hoc analysis) about which alterations/substitutions may work. It has a lot of material on modal interchange, but examples are sparse enough that I found it difficult to grasp the concepts/sounds they were describing.
Where I end up is here: A typical chord symbol specifies 4 or 5 notes. There are several others which are likely to be consonant. For example, a major chord is likely to sound good with 6, nat7 and 9. So, in C, I've got C E G A B D. In addition, I know that F won't sound like a clam, but I have to handle it carefully. That's 7 notes (and it's what a simple CST comment would predict.
There are 5 notes left over. Db Eb Gb Ab and Bb. I know that Gb will sound like a tritone. I know that Bb will make it sound like a dominant and clash with the B. I know that Eb will clash with E and D and won't sound good unless I'm unusually clever. Db will clash with both C and D and create a b9 interval that probably won't sound good. I know that Ab is a #5 and might sound good, but I have to be careful about the adjacent half steps. I also know that I can embed any note(s) in a clever melodic idea and make it sound great (well, I know it can be done, because I've heard it -- not so much in my playing).
So, that's all 12 notes. I know what they sound like, I know where they are.
I can write a similar paragraph for minor and dominant chords.
This approach misses something I think is important -- which is the concept of bitonality, meaning playing something that would be inside sounding on a different set of chords, but which is outside sounding against the tune you're actually playing. Maybe CST would be helpful there.
Getting into bitonality doesn't require anything arcane. Rather, you pick a tune and try things. Maybe start with Levine's upper structure triads. Maybe just try every major min aug and dim triad against various chords. I've seen that kind of thing recommended. Better yet, listen to a favorite artist and then figure out the passages you like.
To piggyback on another poster -- you can't learn to speak another language from a dictionary. The dictionary will help you as you learn to speak, but it is not an effective foundational tool.
-
So obviously the terminology is the big wall most hit right off the start... CST is not a guitar method, or really even for guitarists.
Traditional theory and harmony... describe or identifies a chord's function with relationship to a Key. The actual chord symbol simply describes the chord in isolation. Your job is to be aware of the key and functional harmony etc...
CST also does this, but also describes the chords function with relationship to other chords or chord patterns.... which is Function in relationship to a tonal center, as compared to the Key.
CST describes a "chord" or a "chord Pattern" and all its potential tonal possibilities. The possible functional and non-functional relationships to a tonal center, (not just the Key).
CST describes direct interrelationships between chords and scales... which don't have independent functions.
The name comes from... The function of a chord in relationship to a tonal center determines it's structure, (chord) plus the corresponding Scale.... so you get.... Chord Scale + Theory.
The book just helps show how to determine a chord's function and to help explain and explore common jazz chord progressions.
It's just another possible way to look and hear chord progressions, with possible interrelationships with scales and their organizations.
You don't need it... just like Cole Porter didn't need Relative and Parallel harmonic relationships.... but it generally won't hurt you.
And CST is just a starting point... one door. I don't even remember the term CST from Berklee. There were just harmony, theory,
arranging and composition classes.
It's not like one isn't aware of traditional triad based functional harmony and theory... even taking it to oblivion with Schoenberg.
But it is very jazz friendly and helps one understand jazz progressions and helps when performing, you know when you actually use your ears, and head to improvise and interact and support soloist, or even function in a rhythm section. Even when the music is written out.
I started to get into details in some of my earlier posts.... but it won't really do any good if you don't already have traditional functional harmony awareness etc...
I would think the book... would need added information from teacher to really be able to get through and understand. I wouldn't thing you would be able to just but the book and figure it out yourself. I'm sure the tuition at berklee gets one something more. Even if the costs are stupid etc...
-
Thanks for the thoughtful explanation.
In the interest of furthering discussion (and not argument), I'm going to highlight the parts I don't understand.
Originally Posted by Reg
Again, I very much appreciate your post and your patience. I'm am absolutely not trying to start an argument. I'm just trying to figure out what I'm missing. Thanks.
-
I don't know what justifies something being actually called CST or not. Basic application of melodic minor substitutions in a vanilla jazz way? I learned to do that with minor/major7 arps and maj7#11 arps a few years ago using Joe Elliott's jazz guitar soloing book that everyone was on about, over all chord types. Once you know vanilla applications of MM like that you can get into other subs pretty easily. Originally Posted by christianm77
I guess, technically, that's CST. I mean, it isn't functional major/harmonic minor harmony. It's playing a completely different melodic minor scale over each chord type, even though you're implying a single key. In my mind, it's just one degree removed from basic, chromatic lower neighbor, chord tone soloing. Seems like it's basically about taking an arbitrary chromatic note and organizing it around different possible scale choices, rather than its being purely arbitrary, as a standalone.
If G sharp is lower neighbor of A minor, it can be an arbitrary chromatic note outside of CST approach, ...or with CST, it could be A melodic minor in a very vanilla sense, ...or it could be E altered or something else which TARGETS A minor.... In the end, I would imagine that CST is really about using an ENTIRE NOTE SET to chromatically target a pitch, as opposed to using a SINGLE PITCH to target the same pitch chromatically.
But at a basic level, it begins, for us hobbyists, by using basic chromatic neighbor tones as an entry point into learning/hearing it. Once you learn basic application, it's easier to start applying it in different ways.
By the way, a lot of talk about running scales in this thread. For me, everything I did with melodic minor in the beginning was arpeggios. Arps are much easier to hear and apply in the beginning in my opinion.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-26-2017 at 11:00 PM.
-
A bit about CST. Keep in mind, I didn't go to Berklee...what I've learned I've learned from listening to music, and playing it. I'm going to dumb it down simple style. Not because I think you're dumb. It's because how I understand things. I dont do esoteric.
Rp mentioned the idea of the chord of the moment maybe having possible extensions not notated...goodness...that's jazz, ain't it? Ever play a G7#5 idea over a ii V I in C? I hope so...where did that G7#5 come from? Thats modal interchange...that's using some CST...sorry kids, you all do it!
But yes, CST assumes there's a set of notes that work over every chord, and they might not just be those written. Ok, fine.
The big issue is, people assume CST is a "method," and it states "play this scale on this chord and you're golden."
First of all, that's fucking stupid. If I'm going to design a jazz education "method," why make it something that fits on one sheet of paper (and is already included in every Aebersold book?)
Second of all--yes, that's exactly what it says...and that's the beginning! That info alone gives you nothing. Just some notes that will sound ok.
Because CST is NOT A METHOD it's not going to tell you what the hierarchy is...that's for your ears to figure out...wait, I thought CST was the opposite of playing by ear? Oh yeah, that's bullshit.
CST is an organization system. It's about creating relationships...it's a different kind of map. Works great in some situations...doesn't apply in others.
So if you figure out what "scale" is home to the chords of a tune (try this on a modal tune, Wayne Shorter tune, not friggin' "All the Things You Are") you have the first step--each chord can be it's own resolution, these notes work. Figure out which sound best to your ears and lean on them.
But go further. Harmonize that scale of the moment. What do you see? Are there relationships to the chords around it? Can things be chunked together? That's another level.
What about voicing for comping? What clusters of notes can you grab from the scale? In long stretches, can you setup tension and resolution using V-I ideas? What pentatatonics live within that scale of the moment? Can you harmonize them to get at new voicings? What triads live in there?
Let's go deeper. I's there more than one scale that fits a chord? What relationships does it open? Now, let's not view every chord as its own resolution...Which chords are points of rest? Which are not?
Can you do all of this using functional harmony ideas? Probably. In the end there's 12 notes. It's up to you to organize them.
CST is not a prescription of notes to play. But if you can get past thinking that, there's a lot in it to help...in certain situations.
-
I struggle with the term "functional harmony". Apparently it refers to an older style of chord movement and resolution, e.g. All of Me or Sweet Georgia Brown. No?
It's not only older... it's still being used, Tonic, Dominant and subdominant. Generally used with analysis, started by Jean-Philippe Rameau, "Treatise on Harmony" 18th centurey...reorganized by Hugo Reimann, "History of Music Theory" books 1&2, mid and late 19th century... Extended by Arnold Schoenberg's "Theory of Harmony" and "Structural Functions OF Harmony"... and all the standard college Professors more modern versions... to many to list.
Basically chord movement determined by Function with relationship to a Key. ( Resolution is not the theory... it's how one chooses to realize the movement.)
I assume Key refers to the key signature at the top of the page and tonal center refers to the "key of the moment" as songs modulate -- but I suspect I'm missing something. So, for example, Satin Doll is in C, but the Em7 A7 is in D? So, the key is C, the tonal center is, briefly, D?
Yea... the tonic, Key sig is basically same thing. The tonal center can be like the key of the moment, as with modulation. But when opening the modal door... Tonal Centers have pre established relationships with Keys or a Tonic. Think of Relative Minor... the key doesn't change, it's just a different relationship with key. With modal concepts and modal Interchange, there are more standard Relative Relationships. And they still have relationship to the Tonic or Key.... they are extended Relatives and Parallel relationships.
CST seems to describe a group of notes. If you write them on one staff it's a chord. If you put them in ascending sequence on different staffs, it's a scale.
Yes it's describing a group or set of notes... but it's about the interrelationships between the chord structure, (or the chord pattern, a series of chords)... and the scale. What you think of as chord movement and resolution...Function, has many possibilities. There are different choices for what scales with chords and chord patterns.
This come from other melodic and harmonic relationships that can also be going on. If one was to spell all the chords completely and the melody was also included in the spelled chords and you made written notes that stated so... sure the note collections would be limited to just a few or maybe even just one. But then your somewhat missing the point.
Non -functional implies that the traditional Functional guidelines... standard chord movement and standard resolutions ... don't apply. You might think of this like embellishments. or established chord patterns that may use chords that generally imply function... movement. But because of being used as a chord pattern, become like one chord.
ex... Ab-7 to Bb-7... when you add the related V7 chord to each Minor 7th chord... the function doesn't change, or doesn't have to change. It adds new possible interrelationships within the changes.
I thought CST makes the chord and scale the exact same notes, so the "interrelationship" is that they two terms refer to the same exact notes. Is there some other "interrelationship"?
No there are possibilities... It can... but it can be different when using modal concepts, modal interchange, even Blue notes.(see above)
By structure, does this mean the notes in the chord/scale other than the chord tones?
Yes and also because of pre-existing possibilities... the structure of a chord... Abmaj7#11... has a number of possible scales, depending on how the chord is functioning. This is where it's useful to be aware of all scales and chords built on each degree and awareness of modal concepts....which have different organization to create chord movement and resolution, (function).
By "organization" do you mean which notes are in the scale(s)?
No..Different scales can have different guidelines for creating movement,(function), different notes that create the movement.
That would be their organization. So not the notes in the scale... the guidelines which the notes follow would be the organization.
Don't worry about arguments... I'm not on this forum to help me.
-
I think the problem with all this talk is that it is talk.
Music is sound, you have to play it to really "get it"
Reg has some really interesting videos where he plays the relationships
CST isn't a copy and paste kind of method either. Progressions create certain scale choices.
A I bVII7dom has a different function and a different scalar skeleton than a ii V I.
But you understand it through PLAYING it and hearing others PLAY it.
The thread would make sense if we played through examples.
Remember, the people who are all about "non-functional" harmony--you know, the ones who STARTED that whole branch of jazz (it's all good music to me)--they came out of FUNCTIONAL harmony
Miles Davis -- check
Wayne Shorter -- check
Chick Corea -- check
Hell, even Ben Monder--he can play the hell outta the bop idiom
Once again--you have to hear it fully in order to control it.
There's still a lot of relationships that I am trying to control in a completely improvised and melodic way (not using the same melodic pathway every time)
It all goes back to hearing it and hearing people do it right.
-
CST is the opposite of musical malapropism.
-
I ordered the PDF after reading the author's posts here on the forum. Originally Posted by destinytot
No affiliation, but I'm posting a link for anyone who - like me - wishes to satisfy curiosity.
I don't believe the following applies to those with a little prior knowledge:
...because the pages are a thorough reference making plain what the title says (inherent speciousness of all such books notwithstanding).I would think the book... would need added information from teacher to really be able to get through and understand. I wouldn't thing you would be able to just but the book and figure it out yourself.
The linked page (at Amazon) has a convenient 'Look Inside' feature.
Chord-Scale Theory and Linear Harmony for Guitar: Creative Tools for Improvisation and Composition in Contemporary Music: Jonathan Pac Cantin, Jacob Chilton: 9780615431116: Amazon.com: Books
-
If I may summarise, functional harmony = Walter Piston, etc...
Actually, the interesting thing is functional harmony after Rameau evolved after the fact. Even though the treatise was published in 1722, professional composers of the 'classical' era turned their nose up at it, including Mozart, Haydn etc who were working from older system. Basically, a whole system of harmonic rules of thumb which were massively internalised - situations, 'here's how to resolve a 7th chord when the bass moves upwards by step', that kind of thing.
In this reckoning, you didn't have root pos, 1st inv, 2nd inv triads for instance, you had 5 3, 6 3 and 6 4 chords, and they all behaved with different rules based on their intervals not on theoretical root movement. (Thing is even in functional harmony inversions behave differently - just ask Peter Bernstein.)
Rameau introduced a general theory that governed things in a wider sense, but some of the specifics of the early 18th century language were generalised and lost. Many of the top composers continued to learn the rules of thumb because they were great for creating music in a tradition, a language.
But Rameau's theory made other directions possible, Brahms, Wagner and ultimately, Schoenberg.
Remind you of anything?Last edited by christianm77; 11-27-2017 at 07:00 AM.
-
Also I find the root movement in typical root position post-bop II V oriented harmony rather ugly, but that's another rant.... Oh hell, Ill have it out here as it is related to the topic.
Looking at baroque and classical harmony has opened doors in this respect, and I see those principles reflected in the music of Antonio Carlos Jobim, Cole Porter and others. A lot of the older versions of standards changes have this going on.... Take Stella for instance, played as written, the bass movement in the Em7b5 A7b9 etc version of the changes is so haphazard and random. It doesn't form a good counter melody. But the original changes have a beautiful bass line.
IMO one of Metheny's distinguishing features as a composer is the use of melodic bassline movement - I think he got that from Jobim - also Kenny Wheeler, come to think of. Now there's a guy who understood basslines - take a look at 'Kind Folk' for instance. Wheeler had a strong interest in baroque music IIRC, so no coincidence.
I find the 'stacking notes on a root' a very limiting approach to harmony. Of course I say this as someone who likes to compose bass lines...
Anyway, as you were....
-
Nice. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
(How much does the human head weigh again?) Back to practice and preparation.
-
One thing that's very fun to play around with is the very basic first step - what young children learning music would have learned, simple formulae for harmonising a bass note. Originally Posted by destinytot
Regola dell'ottava
This comes from figured bass, but once internalised, it's pretty easy to apply this to different bass lines and come up with stuff that sounds stylistically late 17th/18th century without having to micromanage counterpoint, voice leading or functional harmony.
Anyone who has spent time hacking through baroque classical guitar repertoire will find these shapes and movements familiar right away. Take Weiss's Passacaglia in D, for instance.
The main use of this today is in allowing keyboardists and lutenists to harmonise bass lines without any figures (modern editions have figured bass, because modern classical musicians don't necessarily know these rules.)
The thing I like about this is that it emphasises (like the Barry Harris approach) - doing rather then theorising. Creating sentences in an existing language. The progressions you generate would all be familiar to Piston, but you are not thinking about root movement or chord functions at all. That stuff would have been as unfamiliar to Mozart etc as talking about the Superlocrian with Charlie Parker.
Anyway, I digress. But I see a parallel to many things in jazz education.
Anyway I better shut up or Jonah will appear and spend several hours telling me I don't know WTF I'm talking about in an extremely learned way :-)
-
Many years ago (about a quarter of a century), I was curious about Coltrane tunes - and bought an Aebersold play-along. I quickly abandoned it, which was a mistake - because I didn't go to the trouble of finding out precisely why I wanted to give up trying. Originally Posted by christianm77
Long story short, I've started working on the beautiful ballad Naima. Although I'm doing so without books, I did take a look at the changes in the play-along's book and also in the Real Book.
I find them to be the opposite of helpful - whereas the records.... (the rest of this post can be inferred from the above).
-
Naima: All Major 7 chords (with some various things aboUT the 5th)
-
Bingo - and to bring it back around to CST, those Maj 7 chords can be altered by means of 'modal interchange'. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Reply With Quote
NGD and a Mystery - Epiphone Content
Today, 04:13 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos