Chord scale theory is the opposite of...

[christianm77]

All good points. I have no will to address them in any meaningful manner. However, I'm opinion based guy, like some people think they can hear sound of CST, I think I can hear sound of "layering" and must say, to say I do not like it is one great euphemism. For me, that is the sound of '80s-'90s fusion - rock, from Toto to Metheny and all in between and around, with one single note of distancing, that is -- Metheny is really freakin' good. I do not like those harmonies almost as much as I do not like the sound of perfectly matched scales shredded over them. All in all, that is something I always associated with and colloquially called "Berkley Sound". I do not know why, just somehow I happened to think, "... this shit these guys play, it must be that Berkley thing everybody's talking that I know nothing about. It surely does sound perfectly nice, sophisticated, layered and matched, like they all play in different keys, still it all fits perfectly and they do shred like mad, with an effect that overall it sounds like polished thurd ... . "

In the meantime I learned about Berkley people who sound nothing like above described, who sound genuinely good, so guess I'll have to rethink internal nomenclature.

I thinks because they are good musicians and shit. They listen to music and hear things in their head that they want to play. CST just offers some more possibilities.

Really, my point is, I don't think G over C method can produce many interesting sounds. On another hand, many people in this world like Toto. Very few people like my music.

:-D I like it. But I'm fucking mental.

[docbop]

Attachment 48299

Have to factor in the Spiritual side of Coltrane who was also into Numerology and after he and Ornette spent time with Sun Ra they both got deep into Astrology. Coltrane was a pentacontagon kind of person.

After Coltrane died in a drawer filled with sweet potato pie recipes they found a note. It said to truly discover the path thru Giant Steps one must place the entrails of a goat on a piano keyboard at midnight and then play the changes backwards. Then Barry Harris will appear and kick yo ass!

[christianm77]

Have to factor in the Spiritual side of Coltrane who was also into Numerology and after he and Ornette spent time with Sun Ra they both got deep into Astrology. Coltrane was a pentacontagon kind of person.

After Coltrane died in a drawer filled with sweet potato pie recipes they found a note. It said to truly discover the path thru Giant Steps one must place the entrails of a goat on a piano keyboard at midnight and then play the changes backwards. Then Barry Harris will appear and kick yo ass!

I reckon Dr John has probably done that

[rpjazzguitar]

I guess I don't get what CST is supposed to sound like.

You can use it to outline the obvious changes to a tune, and it will sound like a inside player simply making the changes.

You can use it, I supposed, to play one thing (chord/scale or arp) over another (chord) and it will create a sound -- and there's an excellent chance Joe Pass already played it, just thinking 7th chord and colors.

It seems to me, it's about talking about it later, at least for those uses.

Maybe it's for modal tunes where you're going from one scale to another against the same harmony?

[Jonah]

Classical theory describes compositional system mostly... it's about building up the form.
CST as mostly discussed here ia improvizational system... the form is already composed.

But I think it has compositional potential too.. and it is already realized... more or less occasionally.

For example Melodic Minor is often described as Major with minor 3rd... no need to say that it sounds nonsense from classical theory point of view.. becasue it's either major or minor... it cannot be major with minor 3rd...
But for some new music where there's no strict opposition of major and minor - it could be actually quite interesting relation..

G MM

I is G major minor 3rd (or G major minor)))
II is Dorian b2 (or Dorian Phrygianted)
III is Lydian raise5 (or Lydian Augmented)
IV is Lydian minor7 (or Lydian Dominant)
V is Dominant minor6 (or Dominant .. hm... minorized? -- I know it's melodic major - but does that name have the sense any more?
VI is Aeolian b5 (or Aeolian Half-diminished)
VII is Locrian b4 (or... just Locrian b4)

Now if we realte MM with Natural Major derived scales whole tone below (in this case F)

G MM
I becomes II and it is Dorian Major7 (in natiral F it's just Dorian)
II becomes III and it is Phrygian major6th... or Phrygian Dorinated... (in natural F it's just Phrygian) ...
III becomes IV and it is Lydian Augmented (just Lydian in F)
IV becomes V and it is Dominant Lydian (just Dominant in F)
V becomes VI and it is (wow!) Aeolian with major 3rd (Majordized minor)
VI becomes VII and it is now Locrian Naturalized (raise2)
VII becomes I and it is Major raise1 - ohyes it is...

All this sounds like a theoretical mess that has nothin to do to real practice...
It really shoudl not be realted to classcial functional tonality in this case..
Also I know that IV of MM is used as Lydian Dom on V of the key, or VI of MM is used as VIInatural of the key in jazz... and this is also application of CTS to traditional functional stuff..

But I am looking at it now from different perspective...

Look at A chord/scale in these templates...
in first case it is called Dorian Phryginated (becasue first templated is realted all to G major scales)
in second case it's Phrygian Dorinated ... (becasue in second pattern it is realted to F major scales)

So the difference is in the hierarchy of notes in the scale... their importance in contextual realtions


To absolute purist I should have said it's F major or G major related... becuase this major/minor thing does not matter here any more...
Probably the correct reference would be something like 'Diatonic scales circle'... as reference... because actually it's not quite clear where the tonic is... it depends on the context...
In modal music it is often that every new chord sounds like a new tonic... but this breaks down all the commin harmonic setup... it's kind of absolutely different musical universe... with different means of musical expression...

Sorry for such a long post... that mostly has nothing to do with CST in jazz

[Boston Joe]

I guess I don't get what CST is supposed to sound like.

It's not "supposed to sound like" anything. The sound is whatever you do with it.

[mr. beaumont]

Maybe it's for modal tunes...

That's a great application, yes. Also tunes with "non-functional" harmony.

Anybody listen to Pee-Wee yet? I'm gonna learn that tune if it kills me.

[destinytot]

In Part one of the Adam Neely videos posted earlier, he calls chord-scales 'local to the moment' and modes 'global to the whole piece'.

[mr. beaumont]

In Part one of the Adam Neely videos posted earlier, he calls chord-scales 'local to the moment' and modes 'global to the whole piece'.

Well, that's confusing.

But yeah, CST can be both a micro and macro approach to looking at things...depends on how you want to organize.

[matt.guitarteacher]

In Part one of the Adam Neely videos posted earlier, he calls chord-scales 'local to the moment' and modes 'global to the whole piece'.

Well, that's confusing.

But yeah, CST can be both a micro and macro approach to looking at things...depends on how you want to organize.

Yeah. I think this is mostly a semantics problem with the discussing jazz.

Everything to do with the terms "modes/modal" has a completely different meaning in the technical/literal senses as opposed to the common-practice shorthand ways in which they are used among players. The more heavily into theory You are , the more you have to cater to "proper" ways of describing things. Neely is certainly in that category.

Funny, even Bert Ligon - who can't bring himself to call a chord "dominant " unless it's actually FUNCTIONING as dominant - ("Major Minor 7" is the QUALITY without regard to function or nonfunction) - makes concessions for the shorthand terminology. He has a lengthy section on how these things aren't truly "modal" and how talking about them like that it's somewhat ridiculous,.... but then concedes with something like "but sometimes musicians just call it 'Dorian' for convenience" or similar.... :-)

[christianm77]

Funny, even Bert Ligon - who can't bring himself to call a cord "dominant " unless it's actually functioning as dominant ("Major Minor 7" is the QUALITY without regard to function or nonfunction )- makes concessions for the shorthand terminology. He has a lengthy section on how these things are truly "modal" , but then concedes something like "but sometimes musicians just call it 'Dorian' for convenience".

Ha I dig that.

[Boston Joe]

That's a great application, yes. Also tunes with "non-functional" harmony.

Anybody listen to Pee-Wee yet? I'm gonna learn that tune if it kills me.

I just did. Very pretty tune. I think it would sound great on guitar.

[Boston Joe]

Everything to do with the terms "modes/modal" has a completely different meaning in the technical/literal senses as opposed to the common-practice shorthand ways in which they are used among players. The more heavily into theory You are , the more you have to cater to "proper" ways of describing things. Neely is certainly in that category.

I tend to think of as looking at every chord change as sort of a miniature modal situation. That's not too helpful for playing purposes, but it does resolve the nomenclature issue.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I tend to think of as looking at every chord change as sort of a miniature modal situation. That's not too helpful for playing purposes, but it does resolve the nomenclature issue.

Yeah. I think, as much as anything, the way real players use it, it's simply a term of disambiguation. Shorthand-use for "Dorian" usually means something like "not melodic minor" or "not b6" or "not something else" etc...

[Boston Joe]

Yeah. I think, as much as anything, the players use it, it's simply a term of disambiguation. Shorthand-use for "Dorian" usually means something like "not melodic minor" or "not b6" or "not something else" etc...

Hey, when I was a kid, I thought "Dorian" was a fingering. At least we're not that bad.

[Robertkoa]

Since I tried to use' Harmony ' by Walter Piston as a teen with no 'instructor'...it also does not make sense to call a chord a Dominant 7th if it is a non dominant
Major Minor 7th.

That's Functional Harmony...III7 when it resolves to IV is a non dominant Major Minor 7th Chord ...lol.


You Jazz Guys calling this a Dominant 7th ....

Coltrane Recording under a different name BEFORE he studied scales ...lol.

I am STILL waiting for it to resolve upward as V7 of IV ...
and it never does....

It's like seeing the movie ' Titanic ' for the fifth time...

you just wish they would miss the damned Iceburg and turn into a Comedy or something...but it never does.

[christianm77]

Well we call an Aug6 chord a dominant as well.

That's life in the jazz world.

Some people - SOME PEOPLE!!!!! - miss out key signatures and misspell chords too.

[christianm77]

Since I tried to use' Harmony ' by Walter Piston as a teen with no 'instructor'...it also does not make sense to call a chord a Dominant 7th if it is a non dominant
Major Minor 7th.

That's Functional Harmony...III7 when it resolves to IV is a non dominant Major Minor 7th Chord ...lol.

Is it not an interrupted cadence in relative minor?

The V7 in the V7-vi is still a dominant seventh.

[Robertkoa]

I know but you Jazz Guys get away with all sorts of cool stuff ( that WORKS ! ) that only really advanced Classical Composers did...so I love that and that's why I am learning more....slowly and late but still good stuff ...and actually I am starting to get away with much more Harmonically also but not so much.


Hmmmm not qualified to debate with you on this..(You are far more advanced in Theory obviously .)
Harmonic Analysis ..I think they might call it a deceptive resolution or borrowed chord from Parallel Minor ?

A lot of Classical Theory people don't consider the bVII7 dominant ..they might call the III7 -V7of vi with an irregular resolution so yes a Secondary Dominant with an irregular resolution.


Scales are the Rhythmic Filler we use in between the really cool notes and ideas.

[christianm77]

I know but you Jazz Guys get away with all sorts of cool stuff ( that WORKS ! ) that only really advanced Classical Composers did...so I love that and that's why I am learning more....slowly and late but still good stuff ...

Harmony has a different function in classical composition to jazz. Hard to compare.

[Jonah]

Well we call an Aug6 chord a dominant as well.

That's life in the jazz world.

Some people - SOME PEOPLE!!!!! - miss out key signatures and misspell chords too.

SOME even can't read music!

[Robertkoa]

Harmony has a different function in classical composition to jazz. Hard to compare.

Yeah but the Modern Theory Books credit Jazz with extending Chromaticism and Tonality and Chord Resolution etc. So far your name has not been mentioned...but you're still young...

Also you realize of course that even before Modern Classical ..the Common Practice Period ..probably 98% of all the progressions and structures were/had already been used in Classical with similar resolutions ..which are heard in Jazz especially Standards..

Most of it is the same especially Standards ..ii V- Is

Circle of Fifths ...altered Dominants Secondary Dominants...

The next step is to resolve the Tritones instead of to the Root of the Destination Chord ...to the 3rd 5th or 7th... that's mine.

[Robertkoa]

Harmony has a different function in classical composition to jazz. Hard to compare.

For full command of Harmony better to know both.

Seems like when you add Common Practice Period then the non functional less Dominant type Harmony and Jazz you get it all ...but the non functional stuff is less documented....more experimental to find it on the Guitar.

On Guitar you get Michael Hedges Joni Mitchell but there's a lot more unexplored stuff .

Chord Melody sounds like Classical to my ears ..but my ears are changing .


'The more you ( can ) Play what you hear/imagine , the less Theory you will need, but Theory can increase what you hear/imagine.'

[Jonah]

For full command of Harmony better to know both.

You see 'to know both' here is a bit obscure thing imho... especially together with 'full command'

What is 'to know' calssical harmony? To read a book and to learn the rules?

To really know classical harmony one has really to play and listen to a lot of classical music...

Full command of classical harmony is playing basso continuo directly from figuers in any baroque piece... or ability to improvize (or at least to compose on papper) sonata allegro in styles of Hayd, then Beethoven, then Schubert or Schumann for example...

This is 'full command'...

I don't insist of course... but one thing is hearing functions and hearing how chords in major and minor are realted to the functions... it's very basic primary hearing that anyone who gets into classical should have.. but it's not really knowing how it works...
It's not application yet...


BUT!
When you apply this functional logics in jazz you can develope it in a bit different way... you really do not have to know all Mozart's sonatas to apply functional tonality in jazz...

The biggest difference of application is that in classical music - harmonic means are composinitonal tools to develop the form - that can be very complex - Baroque oratorias, classical and romantic symphonies often have very coplex tonal plan with skilfull and meaningful modulations etc.... it's like big epic poems or novels.

In jazz practice - the form is usually already given and in comparison to classical it's very simple... functional tonality tools are mostly implied to increase or release tensions around tonal centeres of original harmony.

So the idea is that the basic hearing is the same (functional tonality) but the application is different...

Chord Melody sounds like Classical to my ears ..

What do you mean?
Chord Melody - as I understand it - is a weird name for playing unaccompanied solo guitar arrangements... how can it be classical by definition?

[Robertkoa]

SOME even can't read music!

Long ago I was playing mostly acoustic a lot of Fingerpicked stuff and I wanted to add Classical Reststrokes to really nail lines while Fingerpicking but other Rhythms so I took a few lessons at UM on Classical Guitar - unfortunately the Maestro who could really do them was not there ( Juan Mercadal ).

I took a few lessons with the Assistant and he gave me the Carcassi Book intermediate ..and I took it home and pieced the stuff together - barely reading more like 'Decoding' then basically played it by ear/ memory. I could tell after piecing it together line by line how it was supposed to sound .

So after about lesson 3 he put a piece on a Music Stand and was amazed/ horrified that I could barely read ...lol..and I have maintained that inability to this day.