-
I wish they had a different name for it. Chord palletes or harmonic pitch sets or something....
Originally Posted by Jonah
Haha. lol. yes.As I see it..
- there are scales as technical excercise - similar in classical, to practice long runs in steps. they also practics arpeggios in teh same way.
- there are scales that are modes in modal music, not just modal jazz... but different modal music (early classical, folk, modern classics - whaever)... that is muci where the relationships are built on mode structure (not on functional tonality) - it's very different... the hearing or realtions and tonic and cadences can be absolutely different... it is quite possible that we just do not hear it.
take renaissance pieces and often we will not hear cadence as the conlusion (as we hear in functional tonality).. it may sound abrupted for us... same thing in may other aspects too.. though it was not for those people and their culture
- there's also weird rock-pop guiatristic application of scales (which came i dont' where from) - some mix of educational material and its vulgar popularized application...
I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but it sounds like the sort of thing I agree with :-)- and there are also different applications of scales within fucntional tonality as serious practical method of organization...
That's the nub... Is there a harmonic logic anyone has puzzled out? I certainly don't think it's CST exactly.probably these two last ones are mostly the topic here?
Though for me personally the second is the most interesting... for example trane was mentioned... I do not know what he did as method.. but I definitely hear scales as specifique compositional sound in his music... it's not just application of scales to functional toality... it is different music..
BTW - the first time my friend Shirley, a jazz cellist heard Holdsworth she said - interesting. And then after a while - I don't hear a harmonic logic, more melodic devices. Then - very interesting.
-
01-03-2018 08:39 PM
-
Me too actually)))I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but it sounds like the sort of thing I agree with :-)
I remember in Peter Bernstein's masterclass he was asked about modal tunes... and he said they just give more opportunities for creating movement (I am not sure I quote precisey) - so it's more like he hears modal tune as 'undeveloped functional tonality tune'... I am not sure that everyone would agree with that...)))That's the nub... Is there a harmonic logic anyone has puzzled out? I certainly don't think it's CST exactly.
BTW - the first time my friend Shirley, a jazz cellist heard Holdsworth she said - interesting. And then after a while - I don't hear a harmonic logic, more melodic devices. Then - very interesting.
His hearing is definitely rooted in traditional key functions but in an extended style.
It's like you take early baroque music or late renaissance - and you might hear everything like almost functional but just not mature yet... though from pov of those people they heard everything was ok))
Peter reminds my friend and teacher - composer Boris Yoffe (to one of the greatest living composers) - his music is very geniune breathing and though very much extended it is still deeply rooted in traditional hearing.
I believe mine hearing is the same too...
But during last years I noticed that I began to hear some modal logics better... at least with not so much reference to functional keys...
I think that modern modal hearing and composition is not that much elaborated in compositional and theoretic aspects...
today it's based mostly on personal hearing... and there's no more or less clear convention as with classical harmony. Mostly because there's not so much of compositions in the score yet.
My friend - mentioned above- when I once played some kinfd of modal thing at his home... said: it's interesting... but it sounds like quite the opposite thing to what I am trying to do...
He is sensitive musician who can dig and appreciate these kind of things even if not feeling himself really belonging to it....
those who cannot would just probably say - it's a mess, it's not music, it's static
they always say modal is static - but is Indian raga static? I would not say so.. it's just different kind movement...
recently the guy I play early music with showed me his imitations of medievial compositions... I asked why the harmony is so static? He said: because they did not have harmonic development?
I say: they did not have functional key development... but modal development was very intensive and complex... it was not static it was very dynamic and expressive...
But with early music we have lots of music and also lots of those days theoresists etc. (though those days theoris are not always relative to practice).
It was a language that included not only modes but also motivic figures, intervalic values and meanings, clauses, climaxes, cadences, modulations etc.
As for jazz or modern... I am not sure about Trane... I just can say I hear something different from... I believe we just have to rely on our heariing.
From my pov... it would be great if approaches like CST had more modal application
Paradoxally enough CST - as Reg shows - may work as a tool in functional key context...
but it does not seem to really work in real modal context))) it does not go beyond description of chord/mode sound
-
I think a lot of people have a feeling that to play jazz you have to play a lot of weird scales. I know I sufffered from that delusion for a long time.
But take another listen to this - I'm sure everyone here knows it or knows of it. What do you think he's doing?
Last edited by sunnysideup; 01-04-2018 at 07:52 AM.
-
I've had a look at this one. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
IIRC F# whole tone scale on Gm though (1st chorus, 2nd half). That's a little interesting....
But yes, I completely agree. I love the way he riffs almost like a big band horn section sometimes. Just pure rhythm. The note choices are tasty (lots of 9s and 11s on the minors), but certainly not everything, and certainly nothing that can't be understood obviously.
-
Thanks Christian.
That's a nice start.
What I'm hoping for is that people will present some of their analysis of what they hear based on the context of this thread so far - ie arpeggios v scales, scale types, alterations, substitutions, diatonic v outside.
References to time slots (ie what second to what second in the recording) might be helpful in focusing on specific motifs.
I really hope this can be useful to everyone, because the topic of note choices against changes is so fundamental, and has so many possibilities; people also hear things in different ways, and there are usually several ways of analysing the same thing anyway. It's also something that's relevant to players at all levels. And fantastic for developing our ears.
There are few absolutely right or wrong ideas about a lot of this kind of stuff, so I hope people won't be inhibited about giving their ideas, or worried about losing face or asking questions of the forum at large
-
Well, in practice a lot of modern player's playing is comprehensible using that (CST) logic. I wonder why? :-D Originally Posted by Jonah
There is a current running through jazz (Bop-->Bill Evans-->Herbie etc) that represents that line of development, and there are other lines of development that have fallen by the wayside or represent alternative approaches (Monk, bop language, Barry Harris) - even some alternative takes on improvisation (Garzone.)
I think 'Trane often gets lumped in with the CST guys cos he played scales - he even gets the blame for Modern Jazz Education (oh noes!!!!). But I don't hear/see that logic in for example, his solo on Limehouse Blues.Last edited by christianm77; 01-04-2018 at 08:45 AM.
-
Christian, you seem to be using the term CST in a very specific and limited way.
All music that has chords and scales has some kind of relationship between the two, not just jazz, and not just western music. That's how I think of CST.
Maybe some people here are using CST as a label for one of Berklee's methods (or some other school), but that would be diminishing its relevance, much as I respect Berklee's and other methods.
-
It's a nice coincidence that you chose a solo that's one of my favourites and have looked at. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
General stuff that strikes me:
There are actually a lot of CST-ish aspects to the Wes solo. Big one for me is use of the G-7 or G-9 sound as a tonic minor (as opposed to the more traditional Gm triad, Gm(maj7) or Gm6 sounds) which is kind of a Wes trademark - at least at this stage. Also the use of the upper extensions of that chord as a 13th chord version of the Dorian mode. Again, very Wes, but also it falls into the CST.
Exploring the extended sound of dominant was common 1920s on - but would I be correct in saying that exploring the sound of a static minor with a b7 like this is a more post Miles thing to do? I'm thinking Kind of Blue, but I suppose earlier, maybe Milestones (New) perhaps some of the Gil Evans stuff... Maybe Ahmad Jamal was trying this kind of thing....
Wes also uses the 'wrong pentatonic' (e.g. Gm pent on Cm) in a way similar to Wayne Shorter and Trane (and many others I haven't transcribed I'm sure.)
-
Christian, I really was rather hoping we could focus on specific motifs rather than generalised statements, not because I'm trying to be bossy, but simply because I think it would be more useful in developing understanding of the relationships between chords and scales. It would also cut out a huge amount of verbiage which many of us just don't have the time for.
-
I think I am, that's true. When I use CST I go to the 'modern CST toolset box' open it up and have some fun. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
OTOH, I'm also aware of the idea of CST being used as a way, a prism or lens for looking at jazz language. It's perfectly possible to take CST and use to analyse other areas of music. By which I mean conventional analysis of the kind most commonly seen.
In practice I don't do this when working on lines anymore. For instance, I tend to chunk harmony down and view bop lines as melodic rather than harmonic, based on scales and decorations and patterns of scales. Amusingly this heavy scale approach is almost anti CST.
This is a Barry Harris thing - I haven't always looked at things this way, but enjoy the freedom thinking non harmonically is really nice.
So a concrete example that Reg mentioned elsewhere - take the notes E G Bb D on a C7 chord. You might say, well that's playing a Em7b5 arpeggio on C7 to create a C9 sound, which we may choose to relate to some chord scale - probably C mixolydian or lydian dominant.
Where as I would simply view it as a melodic gesture - playing a set of three thirds (a chord, so called) ascending through the C7 scale, starting on the 3rd E. (The C7 scale in BH land is the C mixolydian.) So it's a simple melodic figure through a simple scale.
And the scales are really very straightforward. On the Dm7 G7, we play G7 scale, perhaps using Db7 or Bb7 for a bit more colour - we practice running things into the tritone a lot. So I could do the same thing on F#7 without thinking about the fact that it's a Bbm7b5 and a references C altered or whatever.
So in practice, everything I play is of course analysable using the harmonic CST approach, although some of the stuff might be a little more unusual.
Since what I play is probably not that interesting a frame of reference, I'd like to point out that example of Wes playing the B triad on G7. This is not an uncommon thing for a Barry school player to do either (triad on the 7th of the tritone dominant) - but it's certainly not a vertical relationship that would be condoned by most of the entry-level CST influenced text books... In a way it's kind of non-harmonic, but it works great as a resolution into a target chord (C.)
Again, what Wes does is heavily influenced by the rhythm and swing of these resolutions, which is what I'm trying to say when I blather on about note choices and rhythmic phrasing being linked at the hip. Good note choices can swing of their own accord too. Take enclosures, for instance.
Anyway, that probably came across as confusing and long winded, but I appreciate CST as a general theory, and I think I understand it well enough to use it for analysis if someone made me do it (ugh). It's more that I don't currently use it for improvisation.
-
I find it really hard to put these things into words without generating a lot of text. Partly, people are unfamiliar with a non CST way of looking at stuff. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
What sort of motif do you mean? A motif from Wes's solo?
-
Are you talking about Wes playing a B triad on G7 in the video I posted - please give me the time reference in the video.
(By the way, the 'modern CST toolset box' must be almost unique in having no results on google.)
-
That's me going, hmm, C7 chord, lets take a C lydian dominant and break it into 4ths or whatever. Creates a certain sound/effect. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
The B on G7 was a different solo, and a thread elsewhere on JGO. Sorry for the confusion.
I'm thinking a BH analysis might well analyse those lines Wes plays on the Gm7 at around 0:34 on as actually being melodically based on the C7 dominant scale. Why? Well bebop guys practice mostly on dominants. Related dominants to minor and half dim chords allows more flexibility in how we apply language. This is obviously not unrelated to CST.
But a stupid version of CST might see each chord as being a separate mode requiring separate material (good players do not seem to do things this way.)
At around 0:46, Wes plays a very typical bop cadence on Cm7 F7 Bb which starts off on the notes Ab Gb F Eb C C# D (IIRC) which CST would analyse vertically on each chord - #9 b9 1 b7 perhaps 5 b13 on F7, going into Bb. References the F altered scale.
To a Barry person, the first four notes belong to a descending Ab7 scale (Ab mixo - related to Cm7b5) and then there is a surround (enclosure) resolving to the third of the Bb. The line continues into the Am7b5 D7 Gm7... Effectively we run Ab7 into Bb. We could have done the same thing with F7 or B7.Last edited by christianm77; 01-04-2018 at 10:17 AM.
-
Ok there’s a funky choice on the Am7b5 D7b9 at 0:42. Here Wes plays what is to my (often faulty) ears an ascending Bbm7 arp starting on the 5, F
This arpeggio includes the major 7 of D7, C#\Db.
It’s typical of the sort of thing you get if you use a tritone dominant instead of the altered scale. So in this case we have a melodic figure built on the chord on the 2 of the Ab7 scale
-
yea... still love the music...
Personally there are a few basic Wes lick ideas.
He plays of the minor chord, Dorian, with Dorian reference licks.
The modal use could be how he used the 13th or E as a target. Jazz modal applications of using the characteristic pitch are both using the pitch as a functional tool, resolving the pitch, in a dominant style of function. Or using the pitch to imply a Tonic type of function.
Or... sure typical II V movement. Personally I hear the II V's as chord patterns... basically one reference.
The use of Dorian and Melodic minor as one
And the standard use of blue notes to create harmonic movement. Or expand... I don't hear as just embellishment.
He always likes the 9th of II- chord going to the 13th of V chord 1:15 (melodic min. or approach chord)
Pretty standard... CST would be using Dorian as harmonic organization reference.... as compared to Natural Min.
Or one could just use modal interchange approach. Relative min of Bb modal interchanges to Dorian.
The last part of the solo section generally is Maj/min functional. II V of I , I , II V of VI, VI... II V of new I- Modulate to G- dorian
Or modal interchange... the changes and movement are so simple... just standard jazz chord patterns... there is a lot of freedom to create relationships and develop.
-
The weird thing was a was playing around with a few of those Gm13 style Wes ideas and you have to ground the sound in G Dorian in your head, but all the C7 bebop devices are available and sound great provided you keep that sound in mind. Obviously the main thing is how you deal with c. So this is perhaps CST/modal jazz more as an intuition thing/hearing than anything else, which might be connected to what Reg is driving at (but I am too stupid to quite understand?)
That said, I would say in general that playing the 1 with any prominence on a V7 chord c on C7) gives a very solid effect, but that most of the more interesting floating lester/Christian/Wes type dominant sounds avoid that. So you could say that really it’s hearing dominant as minor to some extent.
It’s a very subtle distinction.
So to answer a question someone asked elsewhere the concept of what we are thinking about (C7 say) and what we are hearing harmonically with the Barry approach are two different things. I think V7 dominant, but I intuitively hear IIm7 V9 etc.
Martino of course would view it all as minor.
-
Nice :-) This is the kind of detailed focus which I think is necessary to really talk about relationships of "scales" to "chords". Probably not more than a couple of bars max. (I still think you've got a bit too much general verbiage, but now it's down to 10% rather than the usual 95% - don't get angry!) Originally Posted by christianm77
You've also chosen one of my really favourite motifs from this performance of Wes's. I analyse this in a different way from you, and that's good for both of us.
I really believe a study group based on this approach would be incredibly valuable to players at all levels.
-
I agree. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
As winston Churchill said please forgive the length I didn’t have time to make this short. Brevity in communicating ideas is golden but it is also not easy.
But I would always much rather base this type of discussion around actual music. It’s great we both know the same solo. And I think it would be great to do this type of thing more often.
Btw how would you analyse that line?
-
Btw Jordan - the stuff about early music and modality etc is really interesting to me but perhaps a bit tangential - could we take it elsewhere?
-
I think there's very important point here...So to answer a question someone asked elsewhere the concept of what we are thinking about (C7 say) and what we are hearing harmonically with the Barry approach are two different things. I think V7 dominant, but I intuitively hear IIm7 V9 etc.
I believe when we play what we basically want is some specific sound in the context... different sounds that we distinguish in musical language as we hear/percieve/use it...
So we try to find a way how to get this sound... we can do it intuitively or develope a sysytem or use some system...
Many jazz methods do not push to hearing really... they just offer a sort of 'fill-in' to patterns... and students also often take for granted... they choose option not because they hear it works and they wnat that sound... but because it's what they learn...
Besides the terminology is a mess... V7 can have so many different hearings that probably it's the time to distinguish it somehow in terminlogy?
As I wrote above about altered.. there are different kinds of altered sounds, they work in different way... maybe when you play old swing style - it's important only the colour of alteration in general.. but in more modern styles you can hear it as very deifferent expressive means
In that sense trial method is still very effective even for advanced peopler... just listen and hear what it is for you and trying not to define but at least to figure where it is, how it works in contex and when it shows up again...
Then come back to knowledge you have and use the tool
-
When I listen I actually hear IV minor chord sound... I mean if it's G Dorian, I hear rather D nat minor in the solo more...He plays of the minor chord, Dorian, with Dorian reference licks.
The modal use could be how he used the 13th or E as a target. Jazz modal applications of using the characteristic pitch are both using the pitch as a functional tool, resolving the pitch, in a dominant style of function. Or using the pitch to imply a Tonic type of function.
I understand that bass line implies G root... but in this part solo seems to be focused Dm7 chord against Gmi in bass ..
That brings lots of Gm9 and Gm11 sound..
And he seems to accent more on D and F notes...
Maybe my ears are wrong though..
I can't even hear in the solo maj 6 - which is specific for Dorian (should be natural E in G Dorian).. at least not before 01:00
Maybe I misunderstood something in your explanation?
-
Re the Wes video
Christian, could you explain what you're thinking here in a bit more detail please, where you think this starts and ends, and how it relates to the chords, or the implicit chords,
"F# whole tone scale on Gm though (1st chorus, 2nd half). That's a little interesting...."
-
Wherever you'd like... Originally Posted by christianm77
(I am working now on Kapsberger's Lute Toccatas solo program - trying to come up with it by spring.. that's why I much into anylyzing that stuff and it's difficult a avoid comparisons)
-
I think of jazz very much as a music of layers. You think of rhythmic layers - 3 on 4, dotted quarter against 4/4 (like that Wes lick) etc etc - but it's also true of the tonality of jazz, tritone sub on V7, whole tone on minor, possibly dominant on minor (maybe) as we've seen in the Wes solo... Originally Posted by Jonah
The music of course is improvisation in a group, so it kind of has to be this way. The layers bear a relationship, obviously, but they are not totally unified either.
Dave Liebman got a lot of mileage out this idea in his book
A Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody: Book & CD (Advance Music): Amazon.co.uk: David Liebman: 9783892210306: Books
Steve Coleman's term invisible paths covers both the use of superimposed chord progressions and rhythms is really nice. That's why I like to analyse lines independent of the context as free-standing structures and only then look at how they relate to the original progression. Usually the relationship is like different journeys to common landmarks.
(There's a nice depiction of this in the Lydian Chromatic Concept. Lester as a Steamboat, Trane as a jet and Ornette as a rocket ship going to New Orleans IIRC...)
-
Yes.. I also always thought of layers in jazz... it even seemed very characteristic aesthetic thing about jazz. Way of thinking.. interacting, composing, reacting .. all through this 'layers thing'I think of jazz very much as a music of layers. You think of rhythmic layers - 3 on 4, dotted quarter against 4/4 (like that Wes lick) etc etc - but it's also true of the tonality of jazz, tritone sub on V7, whole tone on minor, possibly dominant on minor (maybe) as we've seen in the Wes solo...
On all levels - starting with instrumental groupings up to motives even inside the same solo...
Again excuse me comparison with classical... but there it's mostly seems much more intermingled in comparison to jazz...
even on group level as example... rythms section in jazz is to certain degree independent.. making its own layer within composition - though related to soloist of course... it is much more about establishing rythm pattern.
Continuo group in classical is very flexible and follows soloist and harmony all the way and integral with him....
(that's why some modern early music grops sound pop to me - they try to play continuo as jazz rythm section which is absolutlely wrong).
I suppose someone would inevitably argue that conception.. so the diclaimer is that I think it's an aesthetical point... in practice there can be exceptions ... but usually these exception exploit the same idea as contrast, i.s the lack of it)))
Anyways... I agree it could be partly an excuse for mess in terminology and lots of overlapping, and superimposing and substituting (this instead of that, or that over this and over that).. not only as real performance practices but also as a regular mode of thinking or analyzing and theorisizig ...
When I practice at home something and say to my wife (she's an amateur cello and piano player but quite advanced): look how this chord arp sounds over that harmony! Hm...
she says: oh you jazzers.. same thing all the time... let's tale D# major and play it over Ab major and see what happens... why would not you just take normal chord, do you always need to find another to have it on top of it?
It's kind of thinking mode.. what can we add? sub? put away?
The 'layer idea' is there from the beginning becasue almost always the starting point of playing is in reference with some pre=composed composition (standard, tune, changes) , it's before we start, so it makes already two levels at the starting point.
even with original tunes... jazz players seem immidiately tranfer it into 'standard status' for themselves...
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos