Chord scale theory is the opposite of...

[christianm77]

Is it, though?

If not used as a point of rest, the 11 never bothers me. The raised 11th, however, can be a note to land on...and a damn good one.

That's what I mean.

Raised 11th works well if you are some sort of ghastly modernist ;-)

[christianm77]

I agree. The 11, if not landed on, sounds perfectly fine against tonic major. I'll never understand the fuss...

It has to resolve. At least to my ears. And landed on is not quite the right way of putting it - you can accent it if you want, but then resolve, in the manner of an appoggiatura. Chi Chi is a good example of that.

Any note is perfectly fine if resolved. You can accent any chromatic note against a major chord - but then you need to resolve. Again, Mozart etc...

In jazz, you can resolve to a chord tone which is related to, but not the same as the underlying harmony. For example, we resolve the note C# into D on a C major triad - which is a depending on how you look at it, a G triad over a C chord or a Cmaj9 chord, etc... .

One problem with CST is it conflates these two different phenomena - one horizontal (dissonance and stepwise resolution) and the other vertical (superposition of upper structure tertial harmony).

[princeplanet]

It has to resolve. At least to my ears.

Any note is perfectly fine if not 'landed on'.

Yes and no... I do a major version of the "family of four" thing (or as you call it, the ladder of 3rds). So for C maj:

c e g e

e g b d

g b d f

b d f a

You know, the ol' arp up, (maj bop) scale down type of thing. Sure, when you use the g b d f arp, you will resolve the f to a downbeat. But I'm just as happy to play b d f a resolving to g. Yup, leap to and from the dreaded "avoid" note, without upsetting my ears. Obviously context is everything. If I'm using extensions up to the 13th a lot on previous chords, then it's less obtrusive...

[christianm77]

Yes and no... I do a major version of the "family of four" thing (or as you call it, the ladder of 3rds). So for C maj:

c e g e

e g b d

g b d f

b d f a

You know, the ol' arp up, (maj bop) scale down type of thing. Sure, when you use the g b d f arp, you will resolve the f to a downbeat. But I'm just as happy to play b d f a resolving to g. Yup, leap to and from the dreaded "avoid" note, without upsetting my ears. Obviously context is everything. If I'm using extensions up to the 13th a lot on previous chords, then it's less obtrusive...

When I hit the F in that series of notes I hear the need for some sort of resolution. It might not have to follow immediately after, but the ear would expect it as part of the overall voice leading.

The G B D F and B D F A in your example are obviously part of the V7 family of four. The dominant will dominate, here. So, you would be in effect playing V7 over Cmaj. As I'm sure you have good ears and musicality, you would probably just resolve that sound naturally. So maybe this isn't worth worrying about?

Was it you who mentioned using b6 on minor? Would be a similar type of thing.

So, basically, as G dominant = C major, we are playing in C major, right, and creating language with harmonic movement and resolutions built into the scale. We can add chromatics to taste.

Which is either a useful or a completely useless a realisation depending on where you are at :-)

[princeplanet]

When I hit the F in that series of notes I hear the need for some sort of resolution. It might not have to follow immediately after, but the ear would expect it as part of the overall voice leading.

you would be in effect playing I-V7-I over Cmaj. As I'm sure you have good ears and musicality, you would probably just do that naturally. So maybe this isn't worth worrying about?

Was it you who mentioned using b6 on minor? Would be a similar type of thing.

Mind you, I play these groups quickly... Oh, you misunderstood that other post, when I said m6, I actually meant as in the m6 chord! So "B" over D minor, not Bb! ....

[christianm77]

Mind you, I play these groups quickly... Oh, you misunderstood that other post, when I said m6, I actually meant as in the m6 chord! So "B" over D minor, not Bb! ....

Yeah but if you play Bb on a D minor chord, it's similar to the 11th on major thing. You can play harmonic minor on a minor 6th chord if you resolve. It can sound great esp if you use thirds or arpeggios or something.

[princeplanet]

Yeah but if you play Bb on a D minor chord, it's similar to the 11th on major thing. You can play harmonic minor on a minor 6th chord if you resolve. It can sound great esp if you use thirds or arpeggios or something.

Funny you should say that, I was just pondering this very thing the other day- how it sounds ok to play the non raised 6th and the raised 7th against the m6 chord (which of course contains the M6th). It's funny how there are always little surprises like this in Jazz. The other day I told an accomplished jazz pianist I've been messing with V13b9 in minor keys, and he needed to go to the piano (he has perfect pitch) to agree that it can be ok, although he admitted to defaulting to b13 in that context. Just goes to show, you really have to try out everything ​before you decide for yourself when it comes to this stuff.

[princeplanet]

Yeah but if you play Bb on a D minor chord, it's similar to the 11th on major thing. You can play harmonic minor on a minor 6th chord if you resolve. It can sound great esp if you use thirds or arpeggios or something.

Also, I've noted you're a fan of the "backdoor" VII7 in a minor key. As this is essentially V7b9#9 (no 3rd), some may think the missing all important 3rd weakens the deal. But again context is everything. Eg, if you play Dm7 - G7 - Am9, then thats pretty much the ol' "Deceptive" cadence. In fact, I find you can play relative major 2-5-1 material directly over minor 2-5-1 progressions and sound legit - but, if you do it after lots of leaning on the 3rd of V7b9 (so G# instead of g in our example), then the lowered 3rd sounds relatively (pardon the pun) weak.... Context is king, right?

[christianm77]

Funny you should say that, I was just pondering this very thing the other day- how it sounds ok to play the non raised 6th and the raised 7th against the m6 chord (which of course contains the M6th). It's funny how there are always little surprises like this in Jazz. The other day I told an accomplished jazz pianist I've been messing with V13b9 in minor keys, and he needed to go to the piano (he has perfect pitch) to agree that it can be ok, although he admitted to defaulting to b13 in that context. Just goes to show, you really have to try out everything ​before you decide for yourself when it comes to this stuff.

I mean really the only fundamental is whether or not you can hear a sound.

BTW we will, even those of use with perfect pitch, gravitate towards 'comprehensible input' - sounds we already hear. That's why Ravel instructed Vaughan Williams to compose at the piano instead of directly to score out of his head, so that he could invent new harmonies.

All these theories are crutches. Chord tone improvisation is a great first step. IMO it is an important rite of passage. But it is only a crutch. OTOH you can't jump ahead and start teaching the finished product - the 'way to improvise' the 'grand theory of jazz' because the final process will sound nonsensical and unhelpful for the beginner.

So at some point after years of studying solos, theory and so on, it can be great to have someone say 'play what ever you want' - after years of rhythmic work 'don't worry about being out of time' can be the perfect advice to have a player really start swinging.

But that advice might be completely useless to someone else.

[christianm77]

Also, I've noted you're a fan of the "backdoor" VII7 in a minor key. As this is essentially V7b9#9 (no 3rd), some may think the missing all important 3rd weakens the deal. But again context is everything. Eg, if you play Dm7 - G7 - Am9, then thats pretty much the ol' "Deceptive" cadence. In fact, I find you can play relative major 2-5-1 material directly over minor 2-5-1 progressions and sound legit - but, if you do it after lots of leaning on the 3rd of V7b9 (so G# instead of g in our example), then the lowered 3rd sounds relatively (pardon the pun) weak.... Context is king, right?

No, I usually put the third in by raising the relevant note. So G to a G# in the key of A minor, for instance.

But then you can put it down again if you want. So it's almost like having an 8 note hybrid scale. The classic example is Donna Lee (over Bm7b5 E7b9 Am):

A G G# B D E F G F E D C

But you don't have to do that. I could play the b7 of the backdoor (F) and leave it at that for instance.

But a minor third against a dominant chord is very common in Charlie Parker's music, in the major key too.

So basically, what you said :-)

[princeplanet]

....
But a minor third against a dominant chord is very common in Charlie Parker's music, in the major key too.

...

For sure, mind you, when I notice that in Parker, it's usually heard as a blue note in some bluesy little run or something. The "Blues" scale being superimposed on just about anything, is of course, a whole 'nother story which can excuse certain notes that otherwise wouldn't be...

[tomems]

So... for us amateurs, here's what I propose that I do.

-stick with scales
-target chord tones

And further:

-swing
-use substitutions
-learn from the greats
-know no bounds

Am I leaving anything out?

[mr. beaumont]

Pretty good list, I'd say. I'm sure it's implied but "LEARN TUNES" would be a huge one for me.

[christianm77]

So... for us amateurs, here's what I propose that I do.

-stick with scales
-target chord tones

And further:

-swing
-use substitutions
-learn from the greats
-know no bounds

Am I leaving anything out?

Yep, be careful about *trying to swing* - doesn't work unfortunately. Keep it even.

[matt.guitarteacher]

So... for us amateurs, here's what I propose that I do.

-stick with scales
-target chord tones

And further:

-swing
-use substitutions
-learn from the greats
-know no bounds

Am I leaving anything out?

Your first post sounded like like you were ditching arpeggios for scales. I certainly wouldn't necessarily do that. Arpeggios by themselves, not used in a melodic way are could boring, but if you can't make arpeggios interesting, the arpeggios in themselves are not necessarily the problem. Understand that you can use arpeggios to target chord tones, create the enclosures etc. that have been talked about as well.

As an exercise, you can practice arpeggios and tunes by following some simple guidelines. Resolve ascending arpeggios downward to a chord tone of the following chord, and vice versa for descending arpeggios.

Also, regarding subs, understand what is going on melodically . Usually substitutions played melodically over your basic chord imply some kind of enclosure or targeting pattern. E7 or E7alt over A minor can be cool, but it has to be resolved in a way which makes sense, rhythmically and melodically .

[Vladan]

With most diatonic scales, being applied to the "chord of the moment", we have 4 basic chord tones leaving us a choice of 3 "connecting notes", some of which can cause rhythmic displacement such that chord tones may not land on downbeats (the biggest giveaway when listening to a novice CST player trying to sound "jazzy ...

Of course there is more than 1 scale to contain same 4 chord tones, as well as you can turn the thing upside down and consider those 4 tones to be connecting ones ...
Personally, I don't give a F if I place chord tones on beats as long as it's clear there's some tonic around and I think it sounds good. Is it really such a big deal? If musicians can tell I'm a novice, what would uneducated audience say? Would they object, or maybe even find it better on the ear, brain and stomach?
AlsoI'm not quite sure how it's really connected, scales and chord tones on beats? Is there some rule saying you always have to play the whole scale begining to an end and use all the scale notes along the way!


VladanMovies BlogSpot

[christianm77]

Of course there is more than 1 scale to contain same 4 chord tones, as well as you can turn the thing upside down and consider those 4 tones to be connecting ones ...
Personally, I don't give a F if I place chord tones on beats as long as it's clear there's some tonic around and I think it sounds good. Is it really such a big deal? If musicians can tell I'm a novice, what would uneducated audience say? Would they object, or maybe even find it better on the ear, brain and stomach?
AlsoI'm not quite sure how it's really connected, scales and chord tones on beats? Is there some rule saying you always have to play the whole scale begining to an end and use all the scale notes along the way!


VladanMovies BlogSpot

You can do whatever you want.

I am talking about the jazz tradition, an understanding of what has come before in some detail. Tradition is important to me, although not everything. Someone with no interest in tradition isn't going to get on with my teaching.

The uneducated audience - well, whatever. I am not the uneducated audience and I have no ability to second guess them.

[Vladan]

So, you and princeplanet are one same person? Good to know.

VladanMovies BlogSpot

[jordanklemons]

I used to play with a very good bassist who was a Carol Kaye disciple. He told me: NO SCALES. Just arpeggios and extensions. But in the end don't we end up playing most of the same notes?

No way man... my approach gives me an entirely different set of 12 notes that sound so much better!

Arpeggios are cool but I can't get anything to sound musical playing just arpeggios. Or, it's a challenge (Sonny Rollins can play one note and go nuts...)

Don't take this as a sign saying something about arpeggios... take this as a sign about how much creativity you're willing and (currently) able to expend upon what you're playing... in this case, an arpeggio. If you have a hard time making something musical with an arpeggio, chances are good you have a hard time making something that sounds musical with a scale as well. The ability to make something musical doesn't come from the musical device you're employing, but from your own heart, mind, and soul.

Picasso went through a 'Blue Period" where he painted almost entirely with just different shades of blue. For multiple paintings. And they're gorgeous. Stravinsky once said, "That which diminishes constraint, diminishes strength."

Don't limit yourself based on the limitations you assume exist within an idea. Explore those limitations. See how much you can grow within them. See how much creativity you can pour within their walls.

This is my last gasp at trying to do things the right way before I just go back to doing CST.

There is no right way.

I don't have enough time (my theme, I know) to re-learn the guitar. But if I can play Lydian Dominant over some cool chords, that might have to be jazz enough for me...

Wayne Krantz wrote a book called the Improvisor's Operating System. In it, he essentially deconstructs all systems of musical organization and reconstructs a new one in an almost matrix style that opens up the allowance for every possibility of sound within one octave. In an interview he was asked why anyone would want to try that. The interviewer pointed out that he already 'knew' all his theory and that it could take a lifetime to perfect this new system of thinking. Krantz agreed, but then pointed out that a player could spend 5 minutes trying out his system and find something new that they absolutely might fall deeply in love with, and that they never would have found otherwise... and wouldn't that be worth 5 minutes? And what if every time you put 5 minutes into it you gave yourself the opportunity to find 1 new thing you might fall in love with that could drastically alter your playing? Would it be worth it? Perhaps the idea isn't to focus on dreaming about the final product and stressing and wasting time looking for the perfect way to get there... and instead to keep an idea of the final product you want in the back of your mind... but to learn to enjoy the process, the movement, the study, the small steps, the accomplishments... to love the journey towards the final product... which none of us are ever going to reach anyway.

Coltrane used to practice 12 hours a day. And that was after he was already COLTRANE. There's no end. Sorry

[christianm77]

No way man... my approach gives me an entirely different set of 12 notes that sound so much better!

Why stop at twelve?

Don't take this as a sign saying something about arpeggios... take this as a sign about how much creativity you're willing and (currently) able to expend upon what you're playing... in this case, an arpeggio. If you have a hard time making something musical with an arpeggio, chances are good you have a hard time making something that sounds musical with a scale as well. The ability to make something musical doesn't come from the musical device you're employing, but from your own heart, mind, and soul.

True fact.

Picasso went through a 'Blue Period" where he painted almost entirely with just different shades of blue. For multiple paintings. And they're gorgeous. Stravinsky once said, "That which diminishes constraint, diminishes strength."

Don't limit yourself based on the limitations you assume exist within an idea. Explore those limitations. See how much you can grow within them. See how much creativity you can pour within their walls.

There is no right way.

Another excellent point.

Wayne Krantz wrote a book called the Improvisor's Operating System. In it, he essentially deconstructs all systems of musical organization and reconstructs a new one in an almost matrix style that opens up the allowance for every possibility of sound within one octave. In an interview he was asked why anyone would want to try that. The interviewer pointed out that he already 'knew' all his theory and that it could take a lifetime to perfect this new system of thinking. Krantz agreed, but then pointed out that a player could spend 5 minutes trying out his system and find something new that they absolutely might fall deeply in love with, and that they never would have found otherwise... and wouldn't that be worth 5 minutes? And what if every time you put 5 minutes into it you gave yourself the opportunity to find 1 new thing you might fall in love with that could drastically alter your playing? Would it be worth it? Perhaps the idea isn't to focus on dreaming about the final product and stressing and wasting time looking for the perfect way to get there... and instead to keep an idea of the final product you want in the back of your mind... but to learn to enjoy the process, the movement, the study, the small steps, the accomplishments... to love the journey towards the final product... which none of us are ever going to reach anyway.

And then I saw Krantz a couple of years back at a masterclass and he said he was chucking ALL of that stuff out, and starting afresh purely by ear. Obviously a player constantly questioning everything. Still sounds like Krantz though, whatever he does.

Coltrane used to practice 12 hours a day. And that was after he was already COLTRANE. There's no end. Sorry

I know! And he still wasn't as good as ROLLINS! (Makes troll face ;-))

Nah seriously (I love Trane), very enjoyable post.

[gator811]

I dont have a problem with the learning and application of scales. I really have a problem with the way it is generally taught and applied.

Coltrane 'owned' his approach to learning and applying scales and that study was elemental in his execution of super imposing substitutions and other tonal colours in his approach to harmony. Perhaps the biggest and most ironic problem with CST is that it actually hamstrings an effective study of scales......

That's an interesting thing to say - I'm intrigued. How does it hamstring the study of scales?

In as much that CST, when you encounter it unmediated by a great player/teacher, doesnt include any real direction on how to make scales work for you as an improviser except to give you a bunch of notes against a chord.

I encountered CST as soon as I started showing an interest in playing jazz back in the early 80's and I still remember those playalong books that list an ascending scale against a chord in a standard or or one of those long static vamps. That was it - apart from the "now go listen to the records" there was no pedagogy around scale study itself and unless you were classically trained or had a hip teacher you got no insight into scale study.
Of course a more experienced player could have surmised from Coltrane's or indeed Scofield's playing that the scalar approach they were using was guided by some age-old pedagogies that CST doesnt illuminate or refer to. But for young players its absolutely imperative that this stuff - playing scales of all kinds, learning to play dynamically with them, working on articulation, making melodies with them, learning or even composing etudes, is pretty fundamental to learning to play one's instrument.

That's why I like that Sco vid. The first part of it is pretty mind - numbing (he's not overly excited about it either!) but later he starts to break the scales down into various tropes for practicing and the whole thing takes a different direction.

What I said earlier about CST wasnt to suggest that it is a musical fundamental writ large- but it is an aspect or an extension of it IMO. Its just an application/expansion of the relationships that classical musicans(and others) learn in regard to key signatures and major scales. Theres a rumour that one of Aebersold's early teaching gigs was coaching classical musicians in improvisation -"I found out that if you played a little background for people over one scale, they could actually improvise and play what they hear in their head"...... and knowing how well they knew their scales he started applying these to various chords instead of just the tonic of the key.

I'm not a George Russell advocate - just mentioning him seems to either cause the eyes to glaze over or sometimes mass fury. But I do think there are interesting correlations between his theories and other more accessible approaches and so I dont think its BS. In Ready Aim Improvise, when Hal Crook introduces chromaticism - the tones in question happen to be the same tones (b3 and #5) that GR prescribes in his structuring of dissonance. George never professed to create these ideas, he was trying to construct a theory that would explain them...anyway..

[jordanklemons]

Okay, scratch all that. My B. Wants to remove all the return key strikes that should be separating the text. Just looks ridiculous and unreadable.aaaaaaaaand poof! gone...

[christianm77]

In as much that CST, when you encounter it unmediated by a great player/teacher, doesnt include any real direction on how to make scales work for you as an improviser except to give you a bunch of notes against a chord.

That's a big problem. Not the only one.

I encountered CST as soon as I started showing an interest in playing jazz back in the early 80's and I still remember those playalong books that list an ascending scale against a chord in a standard or or one of those long static vamps. That was it - apart from the "now go listen to the records" there was no pedagogy around scale study itself and unless you were classically trained or had a hip teacher you got no insight into scale study.

Me too!

What I said earlier about CST wasnt to suggest that it is a musical fundamental writ large- but it is an aspect or an extension of it IMO. Its just an application/expansion of the relationships that classical musicans(and others) learn in regard to key signatures and major scales. Theres a rumour that one of Aebersold's early teaching gigs was coaching classical musicians in improvisation -"I found out that if you played a little background for people over one scale, they could actually improvise and play what they hear in their head"...... and knowing how well they knew their scales he started applying these to various chords instead of just the tonic of the key.

Interesting point. If it gets the ball rolling...

I'm not a George Russell advocate - just mentioning him seems to either cause the eyes to glaze over or sometimes mass fury. But I do think there are interesting correlations between his theories and other more accessible approaches and so I dont think its BS. In Ready Aim Improvise, when Hal Crook introduces chromaticism - the tones in question happen to be the same tones (b3 and #5) that GR prescribes in his structuring of dissonance. George never professed to create these ideas, he was trying to construct a theory that would explain them...anyway..

The blues notes, in other words.

I have a friend who's a big fan of Hal Crook. I've been meaning to check him out, but the books are kind of pricey.

[gator811]

The blues notes, in other words.

Absolutely. But also (if you include his omnipresent #4) the diminished and augmented tones against the scale.

[christianm77]

Absolutely. But also (if you include his omnipresent #4) the diminished and augmented tones against the scale.

Sorry I misread #5 for #4