Chord scale theory is the opposite of...

[christianm77]

I agree that the original song is a neglected area of study.

I think it’s also worth bearing in mind that since the early days jazz solos have often formed an important corpus of material in their own right.

[Jonah]

I think it’s also worth bearing in mind that since the early days jazz solos have often formed an important corpus of material in their own right.

Yes.. and as a person deeply rooted in classical thinking that's the way of seeing things that I had to learn when I began to approach jazz in practical way... (and that was not easy to understand and accept first)

But now it's nice to have both

[christianm77]

Yes.. and as a person deeply rooted in classical thinking that's the way of seeing things that I had to learn when I began to approach jazz in practical way... (and that was not easy to understand and accept first)

But now it's nice to have both

It's an Oral history.

[Vladan]

[Grant McEvers]

That's the problem with humans, they are always looking for a list of 10 commandments or something. And history has proved time and time again, that doesn't work, in any context. It's clear to me that all my favorite improvisors make full use of their options including CST. I can't even believe there are people on this forum that believe there is something wrong with CST. The answer is and will always be, in matters pertaining to art and creativity: use everything at your disposal to create. Having said that, there's usefulness in limitation. But we use limitation as another creative tool, not as a rule. I sometimes practice changes using only chord tones, but when I do a real solo I then like to ornament those chord tones with other scale and chromatic tones. Go analyze all the best music (specifically melodies) for the last say 400 years and see if master composers (and improvisors) use just chord tones only, or a combination of chord tones, scale tones & chromatics. There will be a landslide victory for one of those two, and hint hint, it's not chord tones only. And yes, I've actually analyzed (and performed) a shit ton of music created over the last 400 years, it's part of the requirement to graduate with a degree in music.

Thanks for that advice. Trying to figure jazz out is really difficult for me and it helps to hear someone say that nothing is off limits and to use anything that works.

[Jonah]

It's an Oral history.

What d'you mean?

[christianm77]

What d'you mean?

It's an oral tradition, is probably a better way of putting it....

The tunes, the solos, phrasing, even the changes we play are part of an oral tradition, albeit a recorded one....

Jazz is not a literature. Well some of it is .... but even big band arrangements were often done without a score...

A tendency towards making it a literature is an inevitable by product of the social changes in the music in the past 50 or so years.

[Jonah]

It's an oral tradition, is probably a better way of putting it....

The tunes, the solos, phrasing, even the changes we play are part of an oral tradition, albeit a recorded one....

Jazz is not a literature. Well some of it is .... but even big band arrangements were often done without a score...

A tendency towards making it a literature is an inevitable by product of the social changes in the music in the past 50 or so years.

I know...

But it's only one side of it... another one is enviroment and social application of it.

If something lives in oral tradition that means not only that knowledge os passed over orally but also that there's some social enviroment where this tradition exists and works...
Like... if you wanted to learn something you had to go to find someone to play with, them you began to play this way or that way - then you learnt from some other players and guys - and so on...
but to become a pro in this kind of oral tradition you must be in some set-up... what you do next, how you come up... no strict regulations like in high education system - diploma, PhD, assignments etc....
But still there was intuitive understanding how it all worked... and whta was your 'diploma' or 'PhD'

Today it's impossible to emmulate it... youtube or masterclasses - though seemingly keep the part of it (because they are mostly oral)... lack this another important part: this natural social enviroment... I do not think that jazz players in 30s junped from one band to another trying to figure out if the moethod of this player will teach them better or not... they just went through basic stages the way it happened and then they came up to another level...

Actually classical academic tradition is also 'oral' in that sence... the only difference is there has always been written tradition too and that there were some educational institutions (but not everywhere and teaching methods were not always that systematic and often were based on personal teacher's approach)
it does not mean they learnt by the book - quite on the contrary..

I do not like jazz being brought to academia as much as I do not like classical in academia today... )))

But I do not see how it is related to what I posted above... ok we can use solos for learning - but why not using form analysis if we can use it?
It gives huge amount of ideas...
Ok Wes copied CC solos - now imagine a guy who has a good ear and who is also good sight-reader and he holds a book of these solos... I think he can listen and play and use everything he knows...
We cannot and I believe should not emmulate those conditions that Wes was in... because I believe we're not planning to become Wes...

Besides jazz music is still very young... and it seems to be quite open for development (unless you want to emmulate specific old style)...

[christianm77]

The thing is, what names do you hear if you ask someone generally knowledgable about music to name some famous jazz musicians:

Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Mingus, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong and so on. The 1920s-1960s, really.

The Real Book wasn't a thing until after this era and was, of course, a direct product of students at Berklee. (There was the Tune-Dex system and fakebooks as far back as the '40s, but I doubt professional jazz musicians took these sources seriously.)

Now, I don't mean to demean today's jazz, but I see the centrality of CST etc in many jazz methods and in education generally as a direct result of the popularisation of lead sheets with chord symbols that indicate the melody as an upper extension, and then using that chord symbol as a basis of chord scales that can be used over the top. It's a neat system... Only problem being it is, as Hal Galper points out, a short cut.

why? Because it doesn't model the process of the great jazz musicians. Perhaps it never claimed to, but there was a fundamental confusion in my mind as young person getting into the music....

I'm not saying that is the only way CST can be used (Reg is a fantastic counter example to that) but it is how it is often taught, and how many guitarists (and other musicians) think. Let's call it the Aebersold paradigm. Also I think it's a generational thing. Musicians who came to modal music in the 60s and 70s had grown up with harmonic popular song and jazz. This is no longer the case.

Often the first time a young jazz student encounters a tune like All the Things You Are is in a jazz education environment, on a lead sheet.

The old popular songs that make up the jazz repertoire stop being songs and start being lead sheets with changes that have to be memorised.

Of course, they are songs, and very often these songs have had a Chinese whispers effect carried out on their changes over the years... Much like oral storytelling. Watching Peter Bernstein's masterclass with Jordan the other night really reminded me of that.... He goes back to the original source and tracks the evolution of the tune, and basis his decisions on that knowledge and his own inspiration.

I feel good jazz musicians have to fight their way through these short cuts and simplifications to a greater understanding too. There are plenty of great teachers who will tell you this stuff, but not many method books.

[Jonah]

The thing is, what names do you hear if you ask someone generally knowledgable about music to name some famous jazz musicians:

Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Mingus, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong and so on. The 1920s-1960s, really.

The Real Book wasn't a thing until after this era and was, of course, a direct product of students at Berklee. (There was the Tune-Dex system and fakebooks as far back as the '40s, but I doubt professional jazz musicians took these sources seriously.)

Now, I don't mean to demean today's jazz, but I see the centrality of CST etc in many jazz methods and in education generally as a direct result of the popularisation of lead sheets with chord symbols that indicate the melody as an upper extension, and then using that chord symbol as a basis of chord scales that can be used over the top. It's a neat system... Only problem being it is, as Hal Galper points out, a short cut.

I'm not saying that is the only way CST can be used (Reg is a fantastic counter example to that) but it is how it is often taught, and how many guitarists (and other musicians) think. Let's call it the Aebersold paradigm. Also I think it's a generational thing. Musicians who came to modal music in the 60s and 70s had grown up with harmonic popular song and jazz. This is no longer the case.

Often the first time a young jazz student encounters a tune like All the Things You Are is in a jazz education environment, on a lead sheet.

The old popular songs that make up the jazz repertoire stop being songs and start being lead sheets with changes that have to be memorised.

Of course, they are songs, and very often these songs have had a Chinese whispers effect carried out on their changes over the years... Much like oral storytelling. Watching Peter Bernstein's masterclass with Jordan the other night really reminded me of that.... He goes back to the original source and tracks the evolution of the tune, and basis his decisions on that knowledge and his own inspiration.

I feel good jazz musicians have to fight their way through these short cuts and simplifications to a greater understanding too. There are plenty of great teachers who will tell you this stuff, but not many method books.

Yes.. nothing that I can disagree with... when I was about 20 I decided to go to jazz school at the University - they had open enetering tests - so you could watch all these guys who came there... what knocked me out really was not the fact that I was not really capable to play jazz... but all the things that were told there all the time... I was young and stubborn and I thought: it cannot be taught that way... it's all fake.
Maybe I was wrong))) But at least that shows that I had some intuitive feeling about the nature of it...


But me.. I also refer to the whole scope of my experience... I mean it's not (or not only) the Real book I think about when I analyze the song as of original... but everything.. some features seem to be more important, some really can be neglected as very general and basic or variative etc.

When I think of a jazz standard I think of a melody and some harmonic background as an idea - not even specific chords but some harmonic sound in my mind... that comes from performance I heard.. from tradition I am in... from culture...


PS

by the way Peter's masterclass really reminded me my classical theory teacher when I was a kid... same personal idependent but very integral approach based on practical hearing and playing...

And think he talks a lot about semantics (though he does not use the word) -

and this is what musicians so often try to avoid... like.. music? semantics?! No no no... but what else? It's all about meanings.

Even when he talks about metronome - he does not say: you should be objective... or not... or this will improve yur timing...he does not put it into a tutorial statement...
he just says it give me some objectivity... that is - in my words - somehow to realte my musical reality with outside.. to keep this flow conventional..
To me it's very clear practical simple and understandable... somthing to stay sane...

[christianm77]

I know...

But it's only one side of it... another one is enviroment and social application of it.

If something lives in oral tradition that means not only that knowledge os passed over orally but also that there's some social enviroment where this tradition exists and works...

Yes. This still exists although it is harder to find. But jazz is weird in that it grew up with recording technology.

Like... if you wanted to learn something you had to go to find someone to play with, them you began to play this way or that way - then you learnt from some other players and guys - and so on...
but to become a pro in this kind of oral tradition you must be in some set-up... what you do next, how you come up... no strict regulations like in high education system - diploma, PhD, assignments etc....
But still there was intuitive understanding how it all worked... and whta was your 'diploma' or 'PhD'

Today it's impossible to emmulate it... youtube or masterclasses - though seemingly keep the part of it (because they are mostly oral)... lack this another important part: this natural social enviroment... I do not think that jazz players in 30s junped from one band to another trying to figure out if the moethod of this player will teach them better or not... they just went through basic stages the way it happened and then they came up to another level...

People who create YouTube content (such as myself) are strongly incentivised to create 'click bait' content. If I put 'Barry Harris concepts' or 'Kurt Rosenwinkel licks' into a video, it will instantly attract more clicks. There's a balance to be found between this and the needs of good teaching.

Actually classical academic tradition is also 'oral' in that sence... the only difference is there has always been written tradition too and that there were some educational institutions (but not everywhere and teaching methods were not always that systematic and often were based on personal teacher's approach)
it does not mean they learnt by the book - quite on the contrary..

I do not like jazz being brought to academia as much as I do not like classical in academia today... )))

Ha, agreed. Conservatoires were not original academic institutions, of course.

But I do not see how it is related to what I posted above... ok we can use solos for learning - but why not using form analysis if we can use it?
It gives huge amount of ideas...

Why not?

I'm not a fan of being exclusionary about this, it's a waste of time....

But it's a primary function of a jazz musician to seek out the music and learn about it.

Ok Wes copied CC solos - now imagine a guy who has a good ear and who is also good sight-reader and he holds a book of these solos... I think he can listen and play and use everything he knows...
We cannot and I believe should not emmulate those conditions that Wes was in... because I believe we're not planning to become Wes...

I disagree. I see EVERY point in emulating Wes's process. But - I don't think his process is any different from any of the top musicians active today. Style or genre is neither here nor there. It's the accent you hear spoken, the dialect you learn, the slang phrases and so on. Every good jazz musician is already doing this stuff.

True, there's no point asking someone who has good ears already, to do ear training. But there is obviously every point in getting that musician to listen to as much of the music as possible in depth.

But for me the gifts that listen/play offers to the jazz musician are unending, and there are as many ways to do this as there are musicians.

Personally, I find it an inspiring way of warming up the creative juices, and while many phrases are clear to me, I do come across things I can't hear as 'words' and have to spell out.

Besides jazz music is still very young... and it seems to be quite open for development (unless you want to emmulate specific old style)...

Sure. But the process remains the same. Good musicians listen and learn.

[christianm77]

Sorry, kind of one step behind your comments here...

Yes.. nothing that I can disagree with... when I was about 20 I decided to go to jazz school at the University - they had open enetering tests - so you could watch all these guys who came there... what knocked me out really was not the fact that I was not really capable to play jazz... but all the things that were told there all the time... I was young and stubborn and I thought: it cannot be taught that way... it's all fake.
Maybe I was wrong))) But at least that shows that I had some intuitive feeling about the nature of it...

From my conversations with colleagues, I think the people who do best out of jazz college are those who are already able to play jazz. Some learn to play after college.

But me.. I also refer to the whole scope of my experience... I mean it's not (or not only) the Real book I think about when I analyze the song as of original... but everything.. some features seem to be more important, some really can be neglected as very general and basic or variative etc.

That's because you are a good musician (and interested in knowledge for its own sake.)

When I think of a jazz standard I think of a melody and some harmonic background as an idea - not even specific chords but some harmonic sound in my mind... that comes from performance I heard.. from tradition I am in... from culture...

Yes.

by the way Peter's masterclass really reminded me my classical theory teacher when I was a kid... same personal idependent but very integral approach based on practical hearing and playing...

And think he talks a lot about semantics (though he does not use the word) -

and this is what musicians so often try to avoid... like.. music? semantics?! No no no... but what else? It's all about meanings.

Even when he talks about metronome - he does not say: you should be objective... or not... or this will improve yur timing...he does not put it into a tutorial statement...
he just says it give me some objectivity... that is - in my words - somehow to realte my musical reality with outside.. to keep this flow conventional..
To me it's very clear practical simple and understandable... somthing to stay sane...

Yes I really enjoyed the way he talked about that.

[Jonah]

I disagree. I see EVERY point in emulating Wes's process.

Then using Robert DeNiro method we should be 19 with how many children and working technician on daytime... I am kidding of course...

It's the accent you hear spoken, the dialect you learn, the slang phrases and so on. Every good jazz musician is already doing this stuff.

Probably I did not put properly...

I do not deny the necessity to listen and study solos... when I said 'emulatig' I meant the opposite extreme thing that we have with academia...

We have a kid who wants to study jazz and who can play some guitar - he jumps in youtube and forums and see plenty of methods (and us - always ready to endlessly discuss these methods) and gets overwhelmed...
Now somebody tells him: you know Wes did not sight-read... he played with his thumb only and three-fingers left hands... and all he did he copied CC solos from records...
And the kid thinks: wow!

And though there's maybe a teacher nearby who can teach him sight-reading, picking technique, lots of interesting and useful things about harmony and melody, and also how to deal with Wes' solos maybe?
... the kid would say: no.. that's not jazz... trascribing CC solos is jazz... I'll do Wes... maybe he will get even the same old CC records and the same type of player Wes had...

But Wes lived much earlier when jazz and blues was around he had musical family... and that kid... what would come out of it? It's not quite evident to me that this kid would be able to really work through CC solos... and on social reasons too...
these things happen naturally usually.

I have seen so many advices like: transcribe... and often these advice prodoce copy-machines who do not know what to do next...

I mean if we speak about education it should be something else too today.

[mr. beaumont]

I have seen so many advices like: transcribe... and often these advice prodoce copy-machines who do not know what to do next...

.

I dunno, does that really happen though? I think it's something entirely different...

Either you transcribe, you get it, and it makes you want to seek further knowledge

Or you try to transcribe, you get frustrated, then you look for shortcuts.

I'm a big proponent of listening to the greats and lifting stuff...the whole concept of transcription, writing everything out perfectly and then learning and playing someone else's solo note for note is kind of a party trick to me...I DO think just telling people to transcribe--and not what to do with it once you do--is lazy advice.

I don't think I hear as many "clones" out there as people say, though.

[christianm77]

Then using Robert DeNiro method we should be 19 with how many children and working technician on daytime... I am kidding of course...



Probably I did not put properly...

I do not deny the necessity to listen and study solos... when I said 'emulatig' I meant the opposite extreme thing that we have with academia...

We have a kid who wants to study jazz and who can play some guitar - he jumps in youtube and forums and see plenty of methods (and us - always ready to endlessly discuss these methods) and gets overwhelmed...
Now somebody tells him: you know Wes did not sight-read... he played with his thumb only and three-fingers left hands... and all he did he copied CC solos from records...
And the kid thinks: wow!

And though there's maybe a teacher nearby who can teach him sight-reading, picking technique, lots of interesting and useful things about harmony and melody, and also how to deal with Wes' solos maybe?
... the kid would say: no.. that's not jazz... trascribing CC solos is jazz... I'll do Wes... maybe he will get even the same old CC records and the same type of player Wes had...

But Wes lived much earlier when jazz and blues was around he had musical family... and that kid... what would come out of it? It's not quite evident to me that this kid would be able to really work through CC solos... and on social reasons too...
these things happen naturally usually.

I would be happy if the kid showed personal passion for learning a musician's music by ear.

If they liked Wes, I would, of course, suggest that they start with Wes. Wes transcribed Charlie Christian, because he like CC. If you like Kurt or Isiah Sharkey, transcribe that. That's Wes's process. Find someone you like and copy their playing. (First steps - NOT the end point.)

(Only problem is modern players are often playing more complicated music... So it may be necessary to gently guide the student to a task that is with their reach, such as learning one of the simpler choruses of Kurt, or something.)

I would encourage anyone to go down this path, and my lessons often involve showing students they CAN do this on their own. The process for doing it.

Aside from your hypothetical dream students (hey, maybe Russia is better for this!) most (non-jazz) guitarists who come to me wanting to learn jazz, are, bluntly, not really musicians, and reliant on tab etc. A big aspect of teaching them jazz is simply teaching them how to music, so to speak, and where the notes are on the guitar. That's actually why a lot of people want 'jazz chops' - it has less to do with the music per se.

The actual musician they check out is less important. It might be someone I personally hate. I don't care.

Most teachers (including me) would be keen to point out the value of staff notation and so on, in opening up options.

So I teach music and guitar. The jazz side of it is up to the student in many ways.

I have seen so many advices like: transcribe... and often these advice prodoce copy-machines who do not know what to do next...

I mean if we speak about education it should be something else too today.

I hate the term transcribe. It means as little as improvise. I prefer listen/play.

If you have someone transcribe a solo and then play it verbatim, or take licks from a solo and regurgitate them in context, you get the copy-machine effect.

As I have implied above, this can be a valid stage in a musicians playing. It's not nothing to be able to do that. You have to learn your instrument. Here we have Bird, the Lester Young lick dictionary circa 1943:

Obviously, he moved on.

There are other ways to transcribe, and various reasons to do it. It is an extremely holistic practice activity for technique, ears, language, rhythm, analysis and so on, which is why it is often prescribed. OTOH, it is also not the be-all and end-all.

I do not personally practice listen/play because I want to copy, I do so because I want to be able to hear more 'words' of the language, and understand what is being said to me on the band stand. It is also a good way to model the process of improvisation.

[christianm77]

BTW Scott Henderson said that the way to develop an individual sound is to copy lots of different people... FWIW that's more my process over the years, I've never modelled my playing on just one guy.

[Robertkoa]

I was listening to a Demo of a Peerless Guitar...and here on Youtube is something very pertinent to this Thread.

Watch the Guy ..play the Song on Guitar ..sounds good ...but then later ...when someone asks him about scales to Play over it .

Look at this the List of Scales..a different one for each Chord including a few Modes .

Now I could be wrong here- and I will believe you if you tell me OTHERWISE ...but could YOU or anyone you have ever known or seen up close including World Class Guitarists -

Actually PLAY a Cohesive Solo using this many scales on this Tune ?

'Well , Robert I 've taken a few Masterclasses with Peter Bernstein and He could do it by selecting some important Notes from each Scale and connecting them melodically to important or pertinent Notes from the next Scale into a nice long winding Melodic Improv."

Really? - or would he just laugh and say' no way can this be done as separate scales over each chord' ..

'It's about tying the Chords together with lines not separating them .' Would'nt your favorite Master Improviser say that ?

So CST gone wild ?
Useless Info ?

Backwards Info - the Instructor instead of listing
ONE SCALE per 4 Chords ...which MIGHT tie the changes Together listed an Effing Different Scale for each Chord !

Does this Guy secretly want to lead every Student on a Maze , Wild Goose Chase that will take a long long Time for a Student to shake off?

My take would be to ask for CST ( including Pentatonics) to SIMPLIFY ...give me one scale for
at least 2 chords .

And if you are really an Expert Give me one Scale per 4 Chords ..or 6 Chords or another way ...

Like Common Tones and possible common Extension Tones across them and see if the Common Tones plus possible Extension Common Tones form Triads then use the Basic Scales from those triad groups etc etc.


Now ...where you COULD use all those Scales is IF each chord in the Song was a Chordal Center( Temporary Key ,Harmonic Region , Vamp ) which lasted 8 to 16 Bars ...but it isn't.

That is how I have usually seen CST - though I never studied it at all...

Obviously there is Smart CST and Stupid CST...

Stupid CST treats EVERY CHORD as a Modulation ...lol

Corrections on what I have said ?

[mr. beaumont]

Well, again, yeah, that's the micro-look...the first step in analyzing a tune, not the last. I skip it most times now, I jump right to looking for larger relationships.

[Jonah]

Stupid CST treats EVERY CHORD as a Modulation ...lol

Actually it's what many modal tuneas are about... changing tonic with every chord... it's not stupid in modal context.

I explained it a few posts ago.. it works in music where modes are used for composition as specific sounds... where these specific mode sounds are involved in the compositional structure and meaningful elements.


As per video and comment...

What actually worries me when I see a question: What scales do you use to improvize over this tune? Then gets the list of scales... says thanks..

And note: this question seems to be casual...

for me - supposedly - it looks like he does not dig scales application really... otherwise he would have asked that general question.

So what will he do with these scales? I can't imagine...

[Jonah]

I dunno, does that really happen though? I think it's something entirely different...

Either you transcribe, you get it, and it makes you want to seek further knowledge

Or you try to transcribe, you get frustrated, then you look for shortcuts.

I'm a big proponent of listening to the greats and lifting stuff...the whole concept of transcription, writing everything out perfectly and then learning and playing someone else's solo note for note is kind of a party trick to me...I DO think just telling people to transcribe--and not what to do with it once you do--is lazy advice.

I don't think I hear as many "clones" out there as people say, though.

I knew you would comment on this))
I remember I read about your approach when one of the fist day I visited this forum... I know also that grahambop used this method succesfully too..

You see.. but as we approach and check CST in this thread from pov general educational tool... I also think of trascribing solos from this general education pov... for some it works, for some not...

I transcribed only two solos I believe (I do not even mention - played it)... I am not a good example because I do not find myself accomplished jazz player.
But that is not the reason... the reason that it is very difficult for me to copy other people's timing... I can't get into it.. I have good ear and catch the notes and all... but I cannot really repeat it... it is as something goes on against me..
But I usually can - I call it.. 'mimic it' - you do not play it exactly note for note but you catch phrasing... hard to explain

But nevertheless I picked separate phrases in solos usually... usually it's the genral sound I like and I want know what's going on...

But I can't imagine myself doing it in big quantities.. I am just getting tires annoyed and all... so it does not work for me.

It was not about personality anyway...

The thing is 'transcribing' can be used as thoughtlessly as scales (the only advantage it has more info on jazz substantially, and there's a chance that after years of even thoughtless trascribing jazz gets in his mind and hands... with scales it will not work))))

As Christian wrote 'listnening and playing' - great words...
use solos via listening and playing.. use scales via listening and playing..

Good basic conception..

[rpjazzguitar]

I recently spend a good deal of time trying to understand what CST is. It seemed very elusive, apparently because it elicits a lot of abstract sounding discussion, at least to someone who doesn't already know the vocabulary.

But, the definition, based on the Berklee materials, as I understand them, is simple. At any given moment in a tune it's the scale/mode choices which can fit with the COM -- in the context of what came before the COM and what comes after.

For a given COM there are often multiple choices and that's often what people will talk about. They will use the language of harmony to talk about the function of the COM and then list choices.

As far as I can tell, individual players seem to extend or modify this definition, but those are individualistic takes. Or maybe there's more literature than the Nettles and Nettles & Graf materials I read..

But, all this is for the practice room.

I have asked lots of players, after a great solo, "what were you thinking?". They almost never know. They aren't usually thinking anything remotely like "5th mode of Harmonic Minor leading to ....". My favorite all time answer, "I was thinking, darker"

So, it's to find and internalize sounds in the practice room. And, there may well be better ways to do that. Like the traditional transcription method. That's arguable.

The place where I find CST most useful is when I'm playing a chart I've never seen before, with harmony I can't hear in my mind by reading the chord symbols. In that situation, I'm probably going to stick pretty close to chord tones (picking other notes by ear), but, now and then, I'll think about, say, "melodic minor a b3 up" or something like that.

If somebody has a vastly different take on it than that, I would ask for a concrete example, meaning a set of chord changes and a clear explanation of the analysis. Thus far, when I've seen them, it still comes down to determining the function of the chord, e.g. secondary dominant or whatever and the scale/mode choices that may apply.

[Jonah]

I have asked lots of players, after a great solo, "what were you thinking?". They almost never know. They aren't usually thinking anything remotely like "5th mode of Harmonic Minor leading to ....". My favorite all time answer, "I was thinking, darker"

I always wonder what people mean by thinking in such cases...

For example I often say something like 'In this prelude Bach though about mercy and repentence.. ' and somebody always says 'How do you know what he really thought about? Maybe he thought about hamburgers?'

It always surprises me.. people really believe that thinking is something like speaking?

[PMB]

Great posts, Christian. Regarding Wes and the process of imitation, Pat Metheny basically said it all in a recent interview:
"I don’t want to do what Wes did, I want to do what Wes did!’”

[rpjazzguitar]

When you ask a soloist, what were you thinking at a certain point in a solo, it's clear from context that you're asking about what conscious thoughts led to his choice of notes or rhythm. I've never had any musician seem confused by the question or reply as if the meaning of the question wasn't clear.

[Jonah]

If somebody has a vastly different take on it than that, I would ask for a concrete example, meaning a set of chord changes and a clear explanation of the analysis. Thus far, when I've seen them, it still comes down to determining the function of the chord, e.g. secondary dominant or whatever and the scale/mode choices that may apply.

A few post ago I have reference to Good Morning Heartache in the Songs section... Where I tried explaine transition from bridge to A with Dorian mode..


I think with scales it's important to really hear their sound, their roots as really roots... charaterestic pitches ... General harmonic sound, intervals and their melodic turnarounds and cadences .
Then it begins to make sense.. Meaning.


4-5 years ago I called any chord scale ideas nonsense... and has arguments in this forum too....
but ears change..