-
Originally Posted by wolflen
-
11-04-2016 08:59 PM
-
"Jimmy Bruno and other current guys I follow seem to all use CST more than just arpeggios "
In his teaching, Jimmy avoids discussion of CST like the plague.......
-
I don't think there's much wrong with matching scales to chords, it's just the theory that gets ya, not that we shouldn't have it. Know it and transcend it, I say - if that's possible...
Last edited by ragman1; 11-05-2016 at 11:01 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
I've already said my bit anyway, and the people who agree with me go 'yay' and the people who disagree say 'I can't understand why you say that' and none of us are anywhere other than where we started. I should learn not to weigh in really. No one gives a flying f*** and quite rightly so.
Pitch choices aren't that important anyway. This is all a sideshow.
But I do agree that whatever you learn, you must transcend. The sooner you are able to stop thinking about 'what note over what chord' when you play, the better. However you get to that result...
I urge everyone on this thread who has not yet done so to watch Jordan's video.
-
Originally Posted by boatheelmusic
For the sake of disambiguation, it should be said that CST is NOT simply playing scales versus playing arpeggios. You can play scales and arpeggios applying CST, and do the same while NOT applying CST per se.
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
They should call it Chord Mode Theory IMO, because scales are things that go up and down, from the Italian scala meaning ladder, while the notes modes can go in any order at all (at least in the jazz understanding.)
BTW I think that's what Carol mean by 'note scales' - scales aren't necessarily the things she objects to I would imagine.Last edited by christianm77; 11-05-2016 at 06:13 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
She has also said a few times that many fakebooks have poor changes because the smart young things putting them together didn't think about standards (and music and the changes) the same way the greats who came before them did.
She does know scales, but she doesn't think they are the organizing principle of good improvisation---her focus is on chords, the cycle, b5 subs (-she hates the term "tritone" and insists she never heard a studio player use it, though it's actually an old term, but I'll take her word for it not being in common use among West Coast jazz players of the '50s and '60s), "dims for doms", patterns. She's relentless about this. And she's clear that she's talking about jazz of a certain sort----the swing and bebop era. She knew a lot of those players, and a high percentage of her musical contacts over the decades have been successful pros--I think she knows what she's talking about.
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
IMO people get very caught up in extensions and vertical relationships in these old popular songs, where as I see it, they are songs with melodies based mostly on the diatonic scales and the chords that accompany them are chosen for so on for reasons of voice leading and good counterpoint etc. People not familiar with the study of classical/common practice harmony can underestimate how complex the dissonances can get if they are well prepared and resolved, even though the basic resting chords are simple triad.
It's not because of vertical relationships to do with 'upper structures'. Jerome Kern, Richard Rogers and Cole Porter, I guarantee you, had no idea what that stuff was.
When in fact the 'upper structures' come from suspensions, appogiaturas and so on of basic diatonic material against chords in the accompaniment, not some of superimposed triad or anything else. That stuff is all a work of later theoreticians, and the way the ear perceives this stuff now is coloured by that.
Of course it's not 'wrong' - nothing in music is. I use these sounds myself when I wish to take my music in that direction harmonically. It's more like a completely different interpretation of the same basic material that would completely confuse the original composer. Not the first time this has happened in music theory history!
IMO it comes out of learning songs out of fake books instead of learning the melody and chords by ear and from sheet music and then going from there.
As Barry Harris points out, the songs of the American Songbook were written by classically trained composers. That's the framework we have to play with - not the only stuff - but the basic foundation, and yet jazz musicians seem often to be quite militant about how our specific understanding of harmony is the right way to understand the music.
I have a good friend who is both a great jazz musician and a thoroughly trained classical composer. He says all this stuff. 'What's the big deal about the ii-V-I' he says 'it's just one of whole bunch of ways of going to I.' Standards are full of Deceptive cadences, Plagal cadences, Neapolitan chords, Augmented Sixths and all the other rich harmonic movement of the 18th and 19th century.
While, on the other hand, jazz educations teaching of tonal harmony remains somewhat limited and the published changes represent butcherings of the expert original harmony of the great popular composers. I'm not going full on Jay and suggesting we must always play the original harmony the way it is - but I think the really good players respect the song even where they change. They seek out the original changes and so on.
But my friend is teaching now, at one of the top London conservatoires, so some young jazz musicians are getting good information on this stuff.
Is this important? I don't know. I'm a great lover of the Western canon though, and the way that 20th century popular song and jazz relates to these traditions interests me. The way some of those songs are structured is fascinating from a compositional standpoint. I find understanding a little classic harmony has helped me write what I regard to be more beautiful harmony. It's all personal taste ultimately. No one should feel they have to understand anything.
I would love to know what Carol has to say on the matter....Last edited by christianm77; 11-05-2016 at 08:01 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Er... if it sounds ok, that is.
-
Mark -
Well, it was 4 in the morning and I thought I'd have a bit of fun with Satin Doll (as it happened to come up on the other thread). For some reason it decided it wanted to go a bit country about halfway through so it got a tinge of that. (Strayhorn had nothing to do with it, that was a coincidence).
Anyway, there are quite a few disreputable notes in it, including the one at the end, and a rather hot bass solo. Enjoy - I donate it to the cause!
Last edited by ragman1; 11-06-2016 at 01:20 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
As for Carol's view on this, I'll leave it to you to ask her! (She's bitten my head off a few times now and I'm wary about asking her questions. She's quite a character and I admire her deeply but when others tell me they have found her, well, prickly, I nod and say, "Well, yes, there is that...")
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Thanks. I like the bass solo. Amazing what you can do with Audacity
By the way, here are lots of Carol Kaye's tips etc:
The Official Carol Kaye Web SiteLast edited by ragman1; 11-06-2016 at 11:52 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Vladan
-
Originally Posted by gnatola
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
When all is said and done, it's about hearing it.
-
I think it was Joe Pass who said an improvisation should enunciate the chords and be able to be understood without any backing.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Where it gets interesting is when you realise that you can play 'motion' - not always the same motion as the written chords, nor even anything with any kind of vertical relationship to the changes either - provided you know where you are going and when you are going to get there.
-
I started out playing the trumpet, which is why I play single notes a lot. I can do the chords but prefer the notes for some reason.
I put 'enunciate' but what's the word for when what you're playing shows or outlines the colour of the chord? It's probably outlines!
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
There's a lot to that. We kicked it around some and this is not a quote---my God, that was almost 20 years ago!---but it is the gist: Audiences will go with you just about anywhere so long as you know where you're going. But they can't stand it when you seem lost because that makes them feel helpless. They know you need help but they can't help you---they don't just feel helpless, they ARE helpless. And nobody likes to feel that way. Booting a bombing comic off the stage is a form of self-defense.
(I experienced this once. I was doing my bit when the oddest thing happened: my mind went blank. It was like a TV set was turned off--all silent black. I wasn't disoriented (or stoned or drunk). I just went blank. And I did the worst thing possible: I said aloud, more as an observation to myself than a comment to them: "I forgot what I was going to say next." The groan form the audience was pervasive. I was doomed. Nothing to do but slink off and try again another day. Which I did.)
As Milton Berle used to say, "Security is knowing your lines." Goes for jazz players too.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I said that to someone once and they said 'Well, it's obvious, innit?'. I said that was the whole point but very few people could do it otherwise everybody would be doing it. Genius is often the art of the hidden obvious, if that makes sense.
That's why I like Einstein, he pointed out much of the obvious that no one else saw. Of course having had it done for them the others all jump on the bandwagon :-)
-
Mark -
I've been to a stand-up or two. Why is it that so many comics spend so much time swearing and being seriously aggressive, often right at the audience? I just don't find it funny because, basically, it's not. Why can't they come on and make people smile without effing and being crude all the time?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude or over-sensitive etc, I just don't see the attraction.
Sorry, nothing to do with music
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Starting a phrase late
Yesterday, 11:19 PM in Improvisation