The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 22 of 40 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Posts 526 to 550 of 998
  1. #526

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Or the harmonic minor, which is everywhere in bebop.

    (Anyway, that's a common blind spot in post-modal jazz theory texts. Gary Burton could play bop better than I ever could at the age of 3 1/2 or something, so I'll let him off. TBH I'm not sure if he looked at that music that way. What he says about his own playing is very weird (I couldn't play like Milt Jackson, never transcribed) - well... maybe not, but....

    Gary Burton was a prodigy with perfect pitch. His process was always going to different... )



    Ha! Good one



    You a Feynman fan?
    I've read a couple of Feynman's books. He's someone I would have liked to have met. He certainly seemed to have the ability to explain complicated things simply. I would attribute that to depth of understanding of the material, understanding the listener and being willing to make things clear.

    What is interesting about Gary Burton's 10 scales is that he is talking about jazz in general, not just his own playing. Or at least, that's how it's presented. So he is saying that all the scales he didn't list, which include HM, are involved in just 1% of soloing. It would be interesting to ask him to comment on this further.

    Presumably, this is based on his listening experience.

    I was surprised, since I use first and 6th modes melodic minor frequently, as options for tonic minor and m7b5, respectively.

    But, the point is still about defining CST. Did he do it? Or is there a lot more? He did, after all, explain scale options for various chords and he did address how to decide which scale to associate with the chord in a given situation. If there's more, I'd like to hear the rest explained with this level of clarity.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #527

    User Info Menu

    Scales are organized repositories of harmonic and melodic data.This is a mathematical fact.
    Some of these scales have significant musical presence in the musical history of many styles.
    This does not mean to say that just playing combinations of notes drawn from such scales is sufficient
    to execute any such styles. This we learn by studying the masterworks of and by playing in the style.

    CST is at times presented from a chord of the moment perspective, with a use this note collection recommendation
    Removing context can at times be helpful when studying info that is overwhelming but is a poor representation of
    reality. This comes from that and then goes there and then......etc. This is true more often than not.

    Some teachers extract what they deem as the useful modes, sounds practical on the surface.
    For me, once I commit to learning a scale, I want to know all of what's in there, good, bad and even ugly.
    I feel I would be creating structural blindspots to do otherwise.

  4. #528

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    Hey Jonah,

    Can you clarify, not quite understanding.

    When I listen to chords derived from a single scale, it always conjures up the sound of the scale to me.
    I'm not sure how it could do anything but that, given that the chords are made up entirely of scale tones.
    Are you saying that it's hard to hear a functional root progression?
    Thanks.
    For example basic scale is G Dorian

    and chords are G-Bb-D... and C-E-G - if you play them together or concequently you can defiitely hear Dorian sound right? Because we have all here: G can be heard as root, Bb minor triad... E in the next chord major 6th...
    Rvrn though they are triads I hear them here as Dorian sound

    but now take D-G-C or A-D-F for example - it has no specific Dorian sound though the notes fit Dorian...



    F-G-Bb is it Ab Ionian? or G Dorian? or Eb major?
    And if we take Ab Ionian as basic scale it maybe even more messy to hearing..

    the reference of all the scale to major (or minor) is a question for me too.. why being quite independent in certain context they immidiately lose this identity once they are in majow or minor?
    Do Ionian and Aeolian have characterectic pitches? The scales seem to be inversions of each other because we have equal temperance (in early music modality for exaple it was not like that due to mean temperance)...

    Tha's all open questions for which I think is true since this kind of music is quite young...

    Of course context rules.. always... what makes a context is another question... what will be enough to make contextual reference to certain scale?

  5. #529

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I've read a couple of Feynman's books. He's someone I would have liked to have met. He certainly seemed to have the ability to explain complicated things simply. I would attribute that to depth of understanding of the material, understanding the listener and being willing to make things clear.

    What is interesting about Gary Burton's 10 scales is that he is talking about jazz in general, not just his own playing. Or at least, that's how it's presented. So he is saying that all the scales he didn't list, which include HM, are involved in just 1% of soloing. It would be interesting to ask him to comment on this further.

    Presumably, this is based on his listening experience.

    I was surprised, since I use first and 6th modes melodic minor frequently, as options for tonic minor and m7b5, respectively.

    But, the point is still about defining CST. Did he do it? Or is there a lot more? He did, after all, explain scale options for various chords and he did address how to decide which scale to associate with the chord in a given situation. If there's more, I'd like to hear the rest explained with this level of clarity.
    Otoh you can quite happily play bebop without really using the altered scale.

    I’m sure I could dig out whole bop solos that don’t feature this sound, not to mention swing era stuff.

    So I have to say I think Burton is wrong. Unless he is talking about contemporary jazz perhaps, which is largely influenced by his teachings.

    I find it odd when (usually famous) educators make these pronouncements, but a lot of them haven’t gone deep into the history. There’s actually quite a lot of demonstrably erroneous info out there.

    The odd thing tho is while Burton claims not to have ever been able to play like Milt Jackson and claims it to transcribe, he did clearly have a great command of jazz early on, functional changes jazz and bebop. I wonder if this wasn’t completely by ear.

  6. #530

    User Info Menu

    A quick listen to this though:



    Sounds like Burton might not be using the harmonic minor option on VI7b9 the way most boppers would have done it.

    I’d need to listen closer possibly transcribe. It sounds like he is using a scalic approach in someways.

    But it’s completely bebop at the same time...

    Amazing really

  7. #531

    User Info Menu

    Jonah,

    Ok, thanks, I see your point.
    But the same would be true also for any melody fragments that present incomplete scale info.

    F-G-Bb on the surface is Gm7/Bbma6 but the next note could reveal that it is really Gm7b5/Bbm6 in F minor.
    The same could be true for C-E-G, seemingly sounds in C major, but can also be in F minor.

    Incomplete info yields guesswork analysis.

  8. #532

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    Jonah,

    Ok, thanks, I see your point.
    But the same would be true also for any melody fragments that present incomplete scale info.

    F-G-Bb on the surface is Gm7/Bbma6 but the next note could reveal that it is really Gm7b5/Bbm6 in F minor.
    The same could be true for C-E-G, seemingly sounds in C major, but can also be in F minor.

    Incomplete info yields guesswork analysis.
    Yes of course... but I mostly talked about degree of this self-sufficience...

    It's not quite guesswork with functional tonality

    If we're in the world of classical tonality and we hear c-e-g-c chord... what we definitely hear that it is a major triad... what is contexstual? Function and key.. it could be I of c major, IV of G major or V of F major...
    But this is already a lot of information within this system...
    The reference of identity is very specific.

    To my sense that is what's making it a language... it has potentials for extremely complex means of expression... as 400 years of music shows... but at the same time its elements are very specific, whith all ambiguity their portencils use can be clearly seen... even if there are many options.


    With scales- at least in modern CST - it's like it can be almost anything...

  9. #533

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... a voice (one's own, or that of a subculture).

  10. #534

    User Info Menu

    I don't really understand why... when one doesn't like or want to understand something... they keep trying. Let it go... you don't need CST. You'll still be able to play jazz.

    If you don't have an understanding of traditional Music theory, harmony, counterpoint... all the basics. You really shouldn't waste your time with CST. It not an answer... it's just a collection of possibilities of how to look,(and hear), the same classic understandings. Same 12 notes.

    And if your trying to translate this information to your playing... the guitar. It doesn't just happen. You need to be able to play first. This would be the same for singing... you need to have your vocal skills together first. But we're on a jazz guitar sight... so in general I'll stay with the guitar as reference.

    Much more info. than needed has been posted on just this thread.... to get or understand the goal of CST. If one doesn't understand.... give it up... there are different reasons for not understanding.... Don't waste your time and energy. Take what you like and move on.

  11. #535

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by destinytot
    CST is the opposite of... a voice (one's own, or that of a subculture).
    Come on... that has nothng to do with having or not having one's own voice.

    My opinions here are the attempt to understand that more musically - to analyze maybe a bit deeper - to see prospective of it... I dont doubt if I have to study it or not.

    In my opinion... studying or not shold not be a question... it's not a question when you already achived what you needed without this...

    But I never could understand a question: should I study that or should I study this... is it the opposite of that etc.

    Those who don't ask these questions - they have some privilge because they can decide no their own...


    If you come to a point where you question it.. that means you should study it.

    There are no short cuts in arts... I do not even understand why would anyone want to cut short the road that is so interesting to walk...

  12. #536

    User Info Menu

    Problem started with the thread title itself, really.

  13. #537

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    There are no short cuts in arts... I do not even understand why would anyone want to cut short the road that is so interesting to walk...
    Too true!

    Of course there are those that argue that CST itself is a short cut.



    Discuss

    (TBH I think being Gary Burton is the only valid shortcut for music.)

  14. #538

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Come on... that has nothng to do with having or not having one's own voice.
    Come on... 'having' has nothing to do with my comment:
    CST is the opposite of... a voice (one's own, or that of a subculture).

  15. #539

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... a gateway to ecstasy.

  16. #540

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    It not an answer... it's just a collection of possibilities of how to look,(and hear), the same classic understandings. Same 12 notes.
    Yeah, this I think is the crucial nugget.

    So, in another thread we were talking about "ah hah!" moments. A big one for me was when I realized that the major difference between "jazz theory" and "classical theory" was that classical theory tends to want to find a single explanation for a musical thing, for jazz, it's better to have multiple ways to look at a given musical situation. I tend to see CST as one of those multiple ways. Not the only one. Sometimes a good one, and sometimes not, depending on the situation.

  17. #541

    User Info Menu

    The importance of study is obvious, but the proper object of study is not - especially when 'study' becomes a refuge in itself.

    CST is the opposite of... "Kill the Buddha."

  18. #542

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Apologies in advance for the rant-ish quality of the following.

    Umpteen posts over the years and reading various books and articles, and I still can't quite grasp what CST is. And, it isn't clear that the various posters who seem to know are actually in agreement about what it is.

    The posts which talk about it are often quite abstract, using jargon to refer to unspecified benefits. But, the musical examples so far haven't seemed esoteric at all. It seems to focus on recognizing that there are several options for each chord -- and that you pick one based on the chord progression (harmony) of the tune.

    Gary Burton, in the excellent video posted earlier, doesn't claim to give a full explanation of CST, but he does seem to touch on it. In the first part of the video he identifies 10 scales that he said cover 99% of the musical situations. These are 7 modes of major scale, two modes of melodic minor (lyd dom and alt) and diminished. He alluded to some others that are relevant in a minority of situations, but he didn't say what they were. (I was surprised that he didn't mention first or sixth modes of melodic minor).

    Then, he spoke to the issue of selecting which of the three minors by looking for clues in the melody of the tune or in the chords coming before and after.

    He said that this much gives you the notes you need to solo with, and he then moved on to discussing other aspects of creating a good solo.

    Absolutely clear and free of jargon. But, maybe there's more, I'm not finished with the video yet.

    I am reminded of a friend in an academic field dealing with a colleague who responded to every comment by suggesting a book or paper. Eventually, my friend asked, "Is there anyway we can have a discussion without me first having to read everything you've read?".

    My experience of jargon is that it's often obfuscatory. Eschew obfuscation.
    I think this is the crux of the "problem" with CST -- different people mean different things, with differing degrees of prescriptiveness when they use the term. So, especially in online discussions, you wind up with people talking past each other. People really should start any discussion of this topic with what they mean by it, especially indicating whether they think it's a blue print for what you should play vs a way of analyzing what you did play. You also have the more basic problem that so many people who write can't actually write, so that there's tons of published (and posted) material that's little more than gobbledygook larded with big words that don't actually mean what the authors think they do.

    John

  19. #543

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    You also have the more basic problem that so many people who write can't actually write, so that there's tons of published (and posted) material that's little more than gobbledygook larded with big words that don't actually mean what the authors think they do.
    I write for a living. Welcome to my personal hell.

  20. #544

    User Info Menu

    (Personally I can't really see CST as a shortcut to anything, as it seems much more complicated than the technique of melodic embellishment suggested by Galper among others.)

  21. #545

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    I think this is the crux of the "problem" with CST -- different people mean different things, with differing degrees of prescriptiveness when they use the term. So, especially in online discussions, you wind up with people talking past each other. People really should start any discussion of this topic with what they mean by it, especially indicating whether they think it's a blue print for what you should play vs a way of analyzing what you did play. You also have the more basic problem that so many people who write can't actually write, so that there's tons of published (and posted) material that's little more than gobbledygook larded with big words that don't actually mean what the authors think they do.

    John
    TBF you aren't going to learn how to play jazz hanging out here.

  22. #546

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    TBF you aren't going to learn how to play jazz hanging out here.
    I hang out here to pass the time, avoid work, entertain myself, and check out other people's music and links. Learning is reserved for the practice room and bandstand.

    John

  23. #547

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... this:


  24. #548

    User Info Menu

    CST is the opposite of... sa da tay.

  25. #549

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    I hang out here to pass the time, avoid work, entertain myself, and check out other people's music and links. Learning is reserved for the practice room and bandstand.

    John
    I meant ‘you’ as in ‘one’

  26. #550

    User Info Menu

    So, in another thread we were talking about "ah hah!" moments. A big one for me was when I realized that the major difference between "jazz theory" and "classical theory" was that classical theory tends to want to find a single explanation for a musical thing, for jazz, it's better to have multiple ways to look at a given musical situation. I tend to see CST as one of those multiple ways. Not the only one. Sometimes a good one, and sometimes not, depending on the situation.
    For me this 'ah hah' was that classical theory is about explaining the final result in music... the one that we listen to...

    And jazz theory is more about explainig approaches - what to do to achieve this or that... it's practical theory.

    that's why I often met misunderstanding with classical musiclogists... they just could not get all this mess that was called jazz theory - especially when what they heard on the recored seemed to fit perfectly their common classical system...

    By the way I had an intersting experience - discussion about what improvization is...
    I noticed that jazz players I talked mostly spoke about intention... if the player wants to improvize or not... etc. if he really does or not...
    And I was talking about what listener takes as an improvization... meaning what makes music sound like improvized.. there are lots of written pieces that sound like improvization.. and improvized that sound like written out... so how does the listener know? And does it really matter? In jazz it does...
    to me it's very interesting topic.. actually I think that's what makes jazz elitist's music... you should play or at least understand general jazz player's logics well otherwise you hear only nice arrange,emt in jazz style

    To me this clearly shows the difference between two types of analyzes...
    jazz theory tries to find out what's the player's tool behind the music...
    Classical does not care about it... it only explains the logics of music as it sounds.