Chord Scale Theory question.

[christianm77]

In that Minor 6th diminished scales contain the note collections of both melodic and harmonic minor
isn't there inevitably bound to be some overlap even if the organizational approach differs.

C D Eb F G Ab A B C

Just the short answer for now. (not my intent to sidetrack, just gain some quick insight from your active pursuit of Barry's concepts)

Thanks

Sure, but it leads to different sounds. You can say that the melodic minor options are present in this 8 note scale but the way it is handled in practice pretty different.

One thing is that the 7 of the scale (which is generally what gives its modes their character- #4 on dom, #2 on min etc) is a borrowed dim note here rather than one of the core m6 notes, that kind of changes things. It’s hard to explain in words.

[christianm77]

I took an online jazz course at Berklee. One student kept asking the instructor which scales to play, which scales to play, over and over. The instructor finally became a bit frustrated and said - "think about the chord!" or words to that effect.

CST was not being pushed on us at Berklee when the topic was improv...

Exactly.

Yeah this is a bugbear of mine. Don’t play ‘over’ the chord, learn to play the chord and express it in the line.

I don’t think this type of misconception is the fault of CST. I do think it is a byproduct of its ubiquity within the guitar magazine/online lessons etc continuum.

Rock guitar players come from the mind set of ‘here comes the solo section where I shall shred the Aeolian scale.’ They then apply that mentality to jazz progressions.

[christianm77]

If you've ever met a musician that actually goes to Berklee, they can, yknow...play.

All the stuff about dumb Berklee kids playing "Dorian mixolydian ionian" over a ii V I is made up fogey Internet bullshit, intended to belittle modern jazz shot they don't understand.

The part that is true is they transcribe as "homework." Shudder to think.

I think there are are plenty of dumb Berklee kids (perhaps less so these days) but you won't encounter the trust fund John Mayer wannabes on the circuit.

Instead you will encounter the highly motivated trust fund babies who love music and practice like crazy! (I partly jest, but if you want to be a jazz musician, finding some independent source of income is pretty much a given even setting aside college debt.)

One guy I work with a lot, a brit, was a Berklee postgrad scholar (he's on my forthcoming album where he demonstrates his uncanny ability to play the soprano sax in tune) - he basically credits the year or two he spent their with teaching him how to play. So that's a pretty high endorsement.

He also sounds like an American rather than a Brit, which is interesting. As in '**** you, buddy! this is my sound', as opposed to 'err, excuse me, terribly sorry, here is my sound, I hope you like it.'

I was skeptical about how much value Berklee added due to classes and instruction, and tended to imagine its main value to be in the environment of the top percentile jazz talent being together in one place, playing together and motivating each other, while the classes were generally just there to make it respectable.

I now realise this is a more accurate description of some UK conservatoires where the standard of instruction can apparently be very variable. Berklee (and I daresay the top US colleges in general) do seem to have their tuition game well and truly together.

[Jazzstdnt]

Other transcriptions show what looks like random choices -- the CST theorists always can explain the choices, to the point where any note can be "explained" against any chord. If this were math, that would be an indication that the model is useless.

That rigor comes from traditional (classical) harmonic analysis, not CST. They/we do the same thing in music theory classes at classical conservatories, and have been doing so for a very long time.

Of course, there are fewer "random" choices made by composers than improvisers. Some jazz lines or parts of lines are just "blowing", to your point.

The other part of your post mentions anticipations etc. Yep, Berklee teaches those plus the "over the bar line" ends of phrases. No biggie.

[christianm77]

That rigor comes from traditional (classical) harmonic analysis, not CST. They/we do the same thing in music theory classes at classical conservatories, and have been doing so for a very long time.

Of course, there are fewer "random" choices made by composers than improvisers. Some jazz lines or parts of lines are just "blowing", to your point.

The other part of your post mentions anticipations etc. Yep, Berklee teaches those plus the "over the bar line" ends of phrases. No biggie.

I'm not sure if rpjazzguitar mentioned Berklee TBH

As you have pointed out Berklee pedagogy is not synonymous with CST.

TBF, people who have graduated the jazz programme at Berklee in my experience are able to play jazz to a high level, so I think we can let them off the hook.

Anyway, I think I agree with you on every point.

[John A.]

If you've ever met a musician that actually goes to Berklee, they can, yknow...play.

All the stuff about dumb Berklee kids playing "Dorian mixolydian ionian" over a ii V I is made up fogey Internet bullshit, intended to belittle modern jazz they don't understand.

The part that is true is they transcribe as "homework." Shudder to think.

Yes and no. There is an internet phenomenon to a degree. But in the real world I've enountered very knowledgeable players/teachers who absolutely understand modern styles and think that CST is overemphasized in some programs and (mis)used as an improv method. From what I've observed, the trigger seems to be that there's a steady stream of technically very, very advanced players coming out of programs (for instance Berklee) schools who all sound pretty much the same when they go outside. There are all these Sax players doing this ridiculously complex Brecker-ish stuff, and all these guitar players sounding like Sco on meth showing up at jams and blowing 10 choruses of it on Bye Bye Blackbird, with guys who grew up on Trane or Herbie kind of shaking their heads. Maybe their attributing this to CST is a misdiagnosis, and maybe it's really more a function of people's artistry not yet having caught up with their other abilities (a problem I'd be glad to have ...) . But it isn't just internet fogeys kvetching about stuff they don't understand.

Anyway, I always hesitate to post on this topic since my own exposure to CST is so limited, so grains of salt.

John

[mr. beaumont]

I would say "blame it on (their) youth."

[Boston Joe]

I'm not sure if rpjazzguitar mentioned Berklee TBH

As you have pointed out Berklee pedagogy is not synonymous with CST.

TBF, people who have graduated the jazz programme at Berklee in my experience are able to play jazz to a high level, so I think we can let them off the hook.

Anyway, I think I agree with you on every point.

It's fun - especially if you live in Boston - to bust on Berklee folks, but every Berklee grad I've played with (and that's a lot of them) can play well. I also know a couple of Berklee instructors, and they're monster players. We give them a hard time because that's what we do. They give us a hard time about other things, but in my experience, it's always good-natured.

[christianm77]

Yes and no. There is an internet phenomenon to a degree. But in the real world I've enountered very knowledgeable players/teachers who absolutely understand modern styles and think that CST is overemphasized in some programs and (mis)used as an improv method. From what I've observed, the trigger seems to be that there's a steady stream of technically very, very advanced players coming out of programs (for instance Berklee) schools who all sound pretty much the same when they go outside. There are all these Sax players doing this ridiculously complex Brecker-ish stuff, and all these guitar players sounding like Sco on meth showing up at jams and blowing 10 choruses of it on Bye Bye Blackbird, with guys who grew up on Trane or Herbie kind of shaking their heads. Maybe their attributing this to CST is a misdiagnosis, and maybe it's really more a function of people's artistry not yet having caught up with their other abilities (a problem I'd be glad to have ...) . But it isn't just internet fogeys kvetching about stuff they don't understand.

Anyway, I always hesitate to post on this topic since my own exposure to CST is so limited, so grains of salt.

John

Yeah I kind of know what you mean, but also I think players take a while to cook. You have to go and play real gigs in the real world to escape the dreaded Berklee funk.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Honestly, I don't think it is an accident that the "What scale do I play over this?" question is always mentioned as having been asked by someone younger or more clueless. I really wonder how much of that comes from NON-jazz books or guitar magazines ? I used to read those mags like guitar world in high school, and there was CONSTANT talk of specific modes for every chord in the very way which is always poked fun out here. I'd imagine that it's probably more of a rock guitar magazine - way of looking at things honestly, and much of the problem is in teaching former ROCKERS to stop asking that question constantly.

[rpjazzguitar]

I wasn't talking about Berklee. I was reacting to years of reading posts on this forum, but more on a different forum.

I also know some Berklee grads who are terrific players -- and, if I were younger and had the time/money, I'd love to study there.

And, on the extreme other hand, some of the greatest jazz guitarists in history did not do things the way they are currently taught in jazz guitar programs. Django - two fingers. Wes - thumb and three left hand fingers for single note lines. CC - all downstrokes. I have mentioned this before. One response was that their approaches wouldn't work with current jazz as it has evolved.

My view is that it's a useful tool, which is powerful enough to be misused.

[MarkInLA]

In defence of CST, obviously it's not going to teach anyone how to improvise or create lines. It just says 'this scale/mode/set of notes is okay with this chord or chords depending on function'.

I can't see much wrong with that. It's not intended to replace choice, taste or experience.

Yes. That's what I was getting at, below..The rest is up to the player, far as improvising goes..M

[ragman1]

A Peter Bernstein album came up on another thread. I was just listening to it. Good lord, the CST people would get palpitations and explode.

For example

[Jazzstdnt]

The reason I mentioned Berklee is because I believe that's where CST came from - not the process of matching scales to already composed or arranged chords, that's old and widespread - but the title. I could be wrong about that, but I don't believe so.

Can anyone cite the first published use of the term?

[ragman1]

You could email someone at Berklee. They wouldn't mind.

[christianm77]

Honestly, I don't think it is an accident that the "What scale do I play over this?" question is always mentioned as having been asked by someone younger or more clueless. I really wonder how much of that comes from NON-jazz books or guitar magazines ? I used to read those mags like guitar world in high school, and there was CONSTANT talk of specific modes for every chord in the very way which is always poked fun out here. I'd imagine that it's probably more of a rock guitar magazine - way of looking at things honestly, and much of the problem is in teaching former ROCKERS to stop asking that question constantly.

That's what I said!

[matt.guitarteacher]

That's what I said!

:-) missed that one...

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[Reg]

Yea same shit.... CST is just labeling of the... possibilities of relationships (analysis) with references... when trying to understand jazz harmony. (relationships between chords and scales... with different tonal references).

You get more bang for your dollar... you get possibilities of a chord(s) or scale(s) function in relationship to a key... and also to other chords or scales. (possible vertical and horizontal relationships...with different references). Plug and play with different starting points.

If you don't understand traditional functional harmony.... you know... the same BS that's been around for hundreds of years...you might not really get CST... a collection of expanded versions of...

The traditional def. is..." Direct relationships between chords and scales, functioning in relationship to a tonal center".

Get your physical skills together....that includes sight reading, If you have your technical skills together.... as you become aware of theory and harmony... possible analysis etc...you'll have a better chance of being able to play. I'm a pro... can play and have been able to play for close to 50 years.... I went to berklee to learn how to compose and arrange. I graduated from berklee in mid 70's... Barry wasn't using CST label yet.

Most theory and harmony understandings ... from analysis are more useful when composing and arranging. But if your able to look at a chart and make quick analysis... like in a few seconds, make choices .... and have performance skill and can hear etc...
it becomes useful. But... you need the skills and ears first.

[joel paul]

chord----------------scale----------------------------------------------------------------------------chord tones
maj7-----------------(ionian/lydian)----------------------------------------------------------------(1,3,5,7)
min7 ---------------(dorian/aolian/phrygian)---------------------------------------------------(1,b3,5,b7)
min7b5 ------------ (locrian/locrian?2)-----------------------------------------------------------(1,b3,b5,b7)
dom7/7sus4)------(mixolydian)-------------------------------------------------------------------(1,3[sus4],5,b7)
dom7alt-------------(alteredscale/diminishedscale/lydiandominant/wholetone)-------(1,3,~5,b7)
dim7-----------------(diminishedscale)------------------------------------------------------------(1,b3,b5,bb7)
minmaj7------------(melodic minor)---------------------------------------------------------------(1,b3,5,7)