-
Originally Posted by Boston Joe
If you change your targets, you will really sound like you know what you are doing.
-
11-18-2017 02:04 PM
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
(I don't use either myself, but...) CST is the opposite of XTC because it offers a licit route to ecstasy - ekstasis or 'standing beside oneself', as Mihaly Csicszentmihalyi explains @5:57 below.
See section from 15:25 to 18:00 regarding how the combination of skill and challenge affects being able to enter 'flow':
-
Originally Posted by destinytot
-
For many Rock and Blues Players looking to add to their Vocabulary - learning to chromaticize and Transpose and taking advantage of the Enharmonic Relationships of Modes and Pentatonics - would give
beginners and 'Converts ' a much larger 'window'into
Playing Jazz IMO ...easier to ADD notes to the 5 safest Tones for a Chord Type than learn 7 note scales that have ' wrong ' notes ( to a beginner)( I am aware that if you have the Rhythm and low enough lag time and decent ear you can resolve ANY note to a chord tone or extension and it is ALWAYS only a half step or two half steps away ).
At the very least they should teach that
C Major Scale = the I IV and V Major Pentas and / OR
their Relative Minor Pentas
and Parent Keys for Modes - then go on from there.
Along with teaching how different Chord Tones and Extensions 'FEEL ' over each type of Chord and how this has NOTHING to do with ' Scale' a Sixth always sounds like a Sixth no matter the Scale ..obviously.
And that's the Color - as addressed earlier by those who said CST kind of like 13th Arpeggios ..with usually one 'wrong' Note that is NOT in the Arpeggio -
a' bonus Note '... lol.
So your points on Pentatonics are well taken.
Here's an interesting Wrong Titled Video ( I like Beato's Theory stuff though).
He uses his 'ear ' which is very good to Identify a Chord or Chords THEN applies CST to ' fit' the Changes...but the result is kind of the Best and Worst of CST all at the same time.
Quick competency but not much groove ,drama emotion..I'm sure he can do much better and I could benefit greatly from studying Harmonic Composition with him probably ..but not this.
And of course his Knowledge a of Music and Fingerboard would benefit me as long as I play the way I do now ..and add it in....lol.
And when I Play by ear I really play by ear.( and of course that's mostly good but more Knowledge always helps me and 'playing by ear ' for ME should not be an excuse for musical illiteracy which is why I am here on the Forum).
I should add that I Play by Melodic Cadences which are defintely chord tones and extensions leading into a New Key or new Harmonic Region-
when composing or trying to ' direct ' or Steer an Improvisation OR a composed Melody into a new harmonic Region - CST is too vague- too non specific -
I always do it with distinctively nailing Chord Tones and or Extensions in the new Region- CST FOLLOWS what's there but very rarely Creates what is there.
The point is practicing scales in isolation will get you nowhere , you must tie them into a chord or a Rhythmic Motif , or a Melodic Motif...treat them like a wet piece of Spaghetti..
And Players like Moreno , Kriesberg are NOT IMO at the Top of the Game because they learned or know scales in all positions or lots of scales- they are
at the Top because they can Play what they ' hear' in cool Rhythms that fit the Beat.
Players who practice isolated scales all day without working on Time and different Rhythms and plugging the scales into specific chord types are probably wasting a lot of Time - this stuff should be on the warning label on the CST Bottle...
So Scales in Context that you can bend and twist to your whim to what you ' hear' are a totally different thing to just Playing them in isolation...AND most people who are Top Players do not ' hear' and Play scales in order as Scales- .
Agreed on John McL being an ( rare )exception to the Player who uses a lot of different scales and he is at his Peak in some ways with Shakti .
But McLaughlin does not Play Bebop or R&BeBop..
However- I DEFINITELY see the need to know the 'Vanilla' parts of CST for Modulations and playing over certain Tunes including my own stuff !
However one could say this is just 'Basic Theory requirements for a typical Semi Literate Guitarist -me ...lol.'
Playing by ear to me is not saying this is correct )
1)Playing what I ' hear' over the Track .
2)OR: Playing ANYTHING and resolving it as quickly as possible to a chord tone or extension. ( An Improv.Fire Drill lol )
3) **Or a combination of 1 and 2.Last edited by Robertkoa; 12-05-2017 at 01:00 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Robertkoa
-
McLaughlin certainly fits both criteria.
-
Originally Posted by Robertkoa
Depends on how inquizitive the student is and how much is he exploring on his own. If a student take a scale and turns it inside out, tears it down into it smallest pieces, finds all the harmonic possibilities and his ear learns those sounds, only the most basic of scales would be needed. But if the student just learn to regurgitate the scale in a formalistic way, then they will need many scales to apply their rules to. One treats it like an art the other a science.
-
Originally Posted by Drumbler
Kenny G was a Guest and all he did was play a single note in the background for a whole 'Segment ' like 20 or 30 minutes...
He uses ' circular breathing '- I have a feeling that he can really Play far beyond what he is known for.
I bet I could take some of that pretty stuff he Plays on Major Key Ballads and put a nasty Minor Hip Hop/Jazz Fusion dirty Rhythm under it ..and you guys would go wow ..that's Kenny G...it would sound more like David Sanborn ..Last edited by Robertkoa; 12-05-2017 at 12:13 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Robertkoa
Actually, there's a pro local to me (an outstanding musician and respected teacher) who plays soprano with a tone to make the angels weep - only not in a good way.
-
OK... so again CST is just a harmonic organization with a tonal reference.... it changes when the reference changes. Chord tones also change when you change the chord. CST is not better or worse than basic vanilla chord tone usage. (great players can make anything sound great).
CST is better suited for use with Modal interchange, as chord tones work with Borrowing.
It's not like it makes one a better player.... it has more possibilities... simply because there are more factors, more choices.
Pentatonics also have organization within themselves... usage of Blue Notes also has harmonic organization.... You can have a set of changes that imply specific resolutions and collections of notes and play melodic lines that have different implications, like using blue notes to imply Tonic Dominant chordal movement,(function), and even when the two... the changes and the melodic lines, have different organization, it can and will sound right when performed with some skill.
Being aware of CST generally takes only a minimal amount of time to get and understand... if you really have your basic traditional functional harmony, theory together. ( which most don't)
Most seem to be only thinking of themselves... Like we're always the star.... being aware of CST will help you be a better sectional player, a much better chordal player, and help interact with soloist.... you know when your not the front person. We're not always soloing.
CST is not about playing scales... at least get that much.... IT'S NOT ABOUT PLAYING SCALES. It's about being aware of possible references, TONAL REFERENCES for have organization... HARMONIC ORGANIZATION... which creates guide lines for possible note movement and which notes control that movement. (How one embellishes, creates relationships and develops them is open to the performer).
Again... it's not about playing scales. Guitars generally because of their limited musicianship use it as a source for running scales over changes... which is very vanilla... at any speed, and at best is the first level of application.
Why do guitarist use pentatonics, (I love pentatonics), They're easy to perform on the guitar. Want to sound like a jazz blues guitarist use the pentatonic pattern I mentioned in my previous post, replace the b7 with maj6th... and embellish and act like your really feeling every note your playing...in that magic moment of the flow etc... I feel like I'm back in the 60's. (it was fun).
-
... a little note, back in mid or late 70's... I sat in with this cool fusion band in Oregon, I think it was in Eugene, small college town, anyway a friend, Jeffery Ross, young producer got me on stage with Jeff Lorber band... and this bearded sax player was killin it, It was Kenny...
-
Originally Posted by Reg
-
Originally Posted by Reg
-
Being aware of CST generally takes only a minimal amount of time to get and understand... if you really have your basic traditional functional harmony, theory together. ( which most don't)
Uhuh. I didn't.
I do now, and CST slots on top of that. Again - PIANO and PIANISTS. Guitarists have educational disadvantages.
-
hmmm... I can't remember. I might be able to fine and old photo...(old)
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Bbma7...G-7... C-7...F7
I can change the Harmonic organization of the chords still using the same root motion... say the One chord becomes I-7 (dorian), using Modal imterchange...
Bb-7...G-7b5...C-7...F-7...
Now using functional organization... typically the I and VI chord both share Tonic function.
Jazz can uses the II- V7 as a chord pattern... which means... they both can have same function, the power to create movement. So I could make changes...
Bb-9 ...Eb7#11...C-7...F7b9 ...
So I still have a Tonal reference of Bb
but the harmonic organization is now Bb-(Dorian) with some secondary harmonic organization so I could play some minor Blues feels.
There are many possibilities... this example would probable have a few more transitions harmonically using Modal interchange... and the same result could also be reach using different approaches... but the point is I would be using organization, Harmonic organization getting there.
So the difference between CST and traditional Functional harmony... is that the rest of the notes besides the chord tones also help determine function.... where as traditional I would be embellishing.
Different note collections open doors for different relationships... when your aware or your ears become able to hear these possible relationships... your able to get ahead of the moment and be aware of where the music can go. Jazz isn't typically just a written tradition.
Part of using and understanding musical language is expanding possibilities ... moving away from just black and white.... Or not, whatever works for you.
-
I just read the first half, or so, of Nettles and Graf.
So far, it's every chord has a function within the harmony. Once you know the function, you can figure out the chord/scale.
Stated another way: At any point in a tune there is a chord -- and you can extend that chord by several notes without really changing the harmony of the tune. If you write them out one on top of another it's a chord, eg a 13th chord. If you write them out one after another it's a scale. Either way, those are the notes that fit the harmony of the moment. No?
I'm up to the chapter on modal interchange, which seemed a little thick. I'll tackle it later.
-
Reg, thanks for the clarification. Much clearer now. Rick
-
A few things to keep in mind about Berklee's use of CST:
- It goes all the way back to when it was the Schillinger School. Guys like Schillinger himself, yes, but also from guys like Stefan Wolpe who had their students think a bit more vertically when it came to harmony.
- CST is not just an improvisation technique. Berklee considers it just as much (if not more so) an arranging and composition technique. The legendary Herb Pomeroy taught classes in it for many years, but those ideas still linger on. Ted Pease and Ken Pullig's Modern Jazz Voicings is a good example of this legacy, for anyone who would like to see what a deep dive into CST can yield.
- Berklee does not really have a homogenous "improvisation method" that it teaches to everyone. Their guitar department alone features guys like Richie Hart (very traditional bebop guy from the Wes/Benson school) to David Tronzo (super avant-garde slide master) and everyone in between, so there really isn't a Berklee method you can point to. CST is probably felt most prominently in their Harmony classes, but I believe they also have to take traditional 18th century harmony and counterpoint, so it's definitely not hegemonic.
That said, CST has played a big part in the way Berklee teaches improv. The best example is Gary Burton -- if you listen to any of his workshops, it's all very CST-centric. Metheny credits Burton for helping him with scales. Scofield, Stern, Frisell... all those 70's Berklee guys are clearly well-versed in it.
Burton said his goal was to transfer Bill Evans to the vibes, and this makes a whole lot of sense. For me, Bill Evans was the guy that demonstrated scalar voiceleading as a sort of science. You could argue that the Tristano guys did, too, but they weren't as popular. And virtually every bebopper had quite a lot of it down.
But Bill demonstrated to the whole jazz world how you could use altered harmony and careful voiceleading to take lines that flow through the changes in any direction that you choose. And the guys that followed him (Herbie, Chick, Keith) all had that similar scalar approach. Listen to Keith play Kenny Wheeler's charts on "Gnu High." I don't think you can play like that unless you're using CST, or something very much like it.
What I believe that Ethan Iverson is getting at when he compares Bill Evans to Duke Ellington is that Bill Evans' approach to improvisation is much more teachable. It is systematic, and it lends itself to university studies in a way that Duke's approach does not. There is no Duke Ellington Method.
Chord Scale Theory is not enough to play like Bill Evans -- you also have to learn how to voicelead the scales. That's the part that most people miss. But it's not hard once you know what to do.
But -- and this is Iverson's point -- even playing like Bill Evans is not a complete approach to playing jazz. Even if you mastered that scalar approach, you could not just put up a leadsheet of "Mood Indigo" and sound like Duke or "Pannonica" and sound like Monk. There are details in their music -- difficult to conceptualize, somewhat "mysterious" details in their music -- that require careful listening to get right.
-
Golly, you might think CST was the red pill...
-
I like thinking of chord-scale as one guitarist once explained it:
'you take a chord tones and try to find notes in between that fit the chord sound in certain context'.
(Peter Bernstein explained the same thing in one of the videos - he just did not name it a scale...)
It's very general approach.. the notes choice will be mostly how you hear it and how you hear the context - where more tension is appropriate to your ear etc.
I think it's a good approach cause it's very musical... teaches to hear vertical harmony in relation to the line and rely on your hearing first.
Of course it does not mean you do it exactly like this.. it's more like a 'conception'... approach.
you may apply a scale immidiately if you know how it sounds against this chord in the context.
So this is how you use your 'chord-scale vocabulary'.
I also like idea of scale as 13 chord arp but it's very basic thing.
I mean there are more 'scalar scales' which do not fit the extended chord conception.
-
Originally Posted by Reg
Please show me how to make the single-note playing of messrs Tyner, McLean and Shaw happen on guitar - or the reindeer gets it.
-
Originally Posted by dasein
I'd love to hear more about his influence on Berklee jazz education and CST. Says on his Wikipedia page he taught Gil Evans and George Russell, so yeah... What an unlikely influence...
- CST is not just an improvisation technique. Berklee considers it just as much (if not more so) an arranging and composition technique. The legendary Herb Pomeroy taught classes in it for many years, but those ideas still linger on. Ted Pease and Ken Pullig's Modern Jazz Voicings is a good example of this legacy, for anyone who would like to see what a deep dive into CST can yield.
Used as an arranging an composition technique it certainly explains why so much modern film music sounds the way it does. Reactive, static, non-developmental.
- Berklee does not really have a homogenous "improvisation method" that it teaches to everyone. Their guitar department alone features guys like Richie Hart (very traditional bebop guy from the Wes/Benson school) to David Tronzo (super avant-garde slide master) and everyone in between, so there really isn't a Berklee method you can point to. CST is probably felt most prominently in their Harmony classes, but I believe they also have to take traditional 18th century harmony and counterpoint, so it's definitely not hegemonic.
That said, CST has played a big part in the way Berklee teaches improv. The best example is Gary Burton -- if you listen to any of his workshops, it's all very CST-centric. Metheny credits Burton for helping him with scales. Scofield, Stern, Frisell... all those 70's Berklee guys are clearly well-versed in it.
Burton said his goal was to transfer Bill Evans to the vibes, and this makes a whole lot of sense. For me, Bill Evans was the guy that demonstrated scalar voiceleading as a sort of science. You could argue that the Tristano guys did, too, but they weren't as popular. And virtually every bebopper had quite a lot of it down.
BUT - the point about Barry is not the harmony but the linear development of scales into bop lines. That is an improvisation method - and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t fit hand in glove once you’ve got through the language barrier
Tristano is a missing link actually, regarding the use of the altered scale etc... I'd love to know more for the historical background
But Bill demonstrated to the whole jazz world how you could use altered harmony and careful voiceleading to take lines that flow through the changes in any direction that you choose. And the guys that followed him (Herbie, Chick, Keith) all had that similar scalar approach. Listen to Keith play Kenny Wheeler's charts on "Gnu High." I don't think you can play like that unless you're using CST, or something very much like it.
However - almost every jazz musician in London has studied Kenny Wheeler harmony with the same two (brilliant) teachers who teach at all the music schools, and they write harmony in the Kenny Wheeler style. As a result, I am personally at pains to avoid that approach, but it doesn't mean I dislike it (or at least not when Kenny did it..)
That said, I do find that sound world a bit over familiar now, and it's been done to death. We've had 40 years of that stuff.
The post-modal CST era of jazz is by far the longest….
What I believe that Ethan Iverson is getting at when he compares Bill Evans to Duke Ellington is that Bill Evans' approach to improvisation is much more teachable. It is systematic, and it lends itself to university studies in a way that Duke's approach does not. There is no Duke Ellington Method.
Chord Scale Theory is not enough to play like Bill Evans -- you also have to learn how to voicelead the scales. That's the part that most people miss. But it's not hard once you know what to do.
Not so much with Jarrett, perhaps?
But -- and this is Iverson's point -- even playing like Bill Evans is not a complete approach to playing jazz. Even if you mastered that scalar approach, you could not just put up a leadsheet of "Mood Indigo" and sound like Duke or "Pannonica" and sound like Monk. There are details in their music -- difficult to conceptualize, somewhat "mysterious" details in their music -- that require careful listening to get right.
Iverson seems to know everything about everything, and I find his writing a constant source of stimulation….. But I did find his dig against CST quite fun. TBH CST is an easy target in this regard and a favourite axe to grind for older musicians
But it’s only a reflection of changing social conditions in the music, away from a more street, vernacular conception and a more schooled, academic one
If it wasn’t CST it would be something else
Elias Prinz -- young talent from Munich
Today, 10:24 PM in The Players