Chord Scale Theory question.

[Jack E Blue]

Chord Scale Theory (CST) is mentioned a lot around here. I can't find a good, succinct definition of it. Can somebody explain it in simple terms for a simple minded guy?

Thanks.

[ragman1]

Sure, CST tells you what to play over what, i.e. C major over all the chords in C major.

What it doesn't tell you is why that doesn't always make the best solo :-)

[Jack E Blue]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Ragman. That's kinda what I thought it was but wasn't sure. So, it's the thing that Jimmy Bruno is always ranting against.

[Jazzstdnt]

CST is a study of modern harmony that is applicable to composing, arranging and improvisation. As such, it doesn't tell you what to play or write any more than any other harmonic theory does. You might say that it informs one what NOT to play or write.

The fact that it is modern harmony as opposed to "traditional"/"common practice period"/"classical" harmony makes it a valuable reference for novice jazz musicians.

[ragman1]

it's the thing that Jimmy Bruno is always ranting against.

So I believe. Mind you, I wouldn't write CST off altogether. It has its place and is a good guide to what to use over what if you're not sure. It deals essentially with so-called traditional or classical harmony. It certainly gives options rather than set-in-stone rules. But experience will begin to show some limitations and it's that which makes some players so scathing of it - but they probably overdo their criticisms, to be honest. And many contemporary players pretty well ignore it and make very interesting music. So!

Here's something:

http://edsaindon.com/documents/Chord...ry_Article.pdf

[rpjazzguitar]

There's a book by Nettles and Graf on Chord Scale Theory which often gets referenced in these discussions. Having a look at it (clear your schedule) will give you a pretty good idea of what they're talking about.

It is my understanding that there are great players who studied it and find it extremely helpful. And, other great players who don't recommend it.

My impression: it's a potentially very useful tool, but it's seductive and a potential rabbit hole. It's easier for some to focus on the seemingly endless theory than it is on the important work on ear training, improving time, playing melody, learning tunes etc.

[ScottM]

My problem with CST is the modal part. I'm sure I'll get criticized for saying it, but when you have a ii-V-I progression and you are re-grouping and re-naming the same 7 notes, for each chord, that's where it gets kind of silly.

It seems that Jimmy looks at notes against chords as they are rather than creating a scale that includes the note/notes. If you choose to play an Ab against the V in C, It's a flat nine. If you choose to create a scale relative to the key of C that includes the note Ab, that's ok, but a lot of mental work to do on the fly at the speed of music. I *believe* this is Jimmy's thinking/method. He understands scales forward and back as well as any theorist. He just chooses not to use that as the way to improvise.

I love CST and I try my hardest to avoid using it at all times.

[mr. beaumont]

My problem with CSTS is the modal part. I'm sure I'll get criticized for saying it, but when you have a ii-V-I progression and you are re-grouping and re-naming the same 7 notes, for each chord, that's where it gets kind of silly.

The only people who do that are people who have no idea how to use CST.

[bako]

I never knew the phrase Chord Scale Theory before I came to this website but I learned things
from a variety of music teachers that I encountered in addition to much self exploration of the
relationships between melodic content and harmonic content. It was never about prescribed rules for me.

Reverse engineering example: Say you want a CMa7#11 sound.

We start with the given chord tones: C E G B F#
So the question then is what kind of 9th and 13th do I want?


b9/#9/ma9 ??? ma9 being the most common option.
b13/ma13 ??? ma13 being the most common option.

And thus the lydian scale is born. The sound matters, the name less so.
Regardless how one gets there, one should learn the sound of intervals in a harmonic context.
Studying chord scale relationships is one possible arena to do so in an organized way.,

Mostly, the harmony is contained in the companion scale, but in some instances such as
superimposed pentatonics, they might not be:

Ex.

G major pentatonic doesn't contain a C note but impies Cma9/13 (rootless)
D major pentatonoc doesn't contain a C or a G note but impies Cma9#11 (rootless)

There are subtle things that are lost by making scales the only filter for note choice.
It has it's good and less good aspects as do most approaches.

Executing any theory/system can sound contrived regardless of the structural details,
CST or Chord Tone playing. In the hands of rhythmically and melodically creative individuals
the same content can also come alive.
For example, listen to our own Jordan K. improvising using what he calls melodic triads/quadratonics.
He is weaving beautiful melodies with great attention to feel, voice leading and use of space.

No system turns us into master musicians by it's own merits. Check out different systems,
create your own script, your own informed opinion will be the one that matters, not mine,
Jimmy Bruno's or those of other well intentioned commentators.

Play music (with others when possible), listen to the music (live when possible). This is foremost.
This clarifies our aspirations, strengths and shortcomings while exposing us to vast possibilities of
what has been accomplished with music and guitar.

Best luck on whatever paths you choose to walk upon.

[Boston Joe]

I think CST is best when you're learning it in conjunction with lessons from a good teacher. On its own, it's kind of like a map of a city. You can see all the streets, but it doesn't give you any guidance on which is the best route from A to B. A good teacher can show a student how to use CST to good effect. CST was my entry into jazz harmony, and I spent a long time flopping around playing stuff that didn't make any sense until I started to get a clue about what works and what doesn't.

I think there are other approaches that can get one sounding good more efficiently. But it's worthwhile to know CST, because it can help you to put a lot of things into an overall theoretical picture that can make certain relationships clear.

So basically, I think it's useful, but needs to be handled with care.

[christianm77]

(The Lydian and Dorian scale are present in nature. Everything else is the work of man.)

Anyway, what is CST? I'm not sure actually.

The way I use CST is to access interesting modern sounds over simple chords. So, a cheesy example is on a C major chord, I might play the notes D F# A as an upper structure triad. CST understands this as coming from a chord/scale - the C lydian.

Chord - Cmaj13#11 - C E G B D F# A
Scale - C Lydian - C D E F# G A B

Really, it's an application of modal jazz thinking to standard chord changes. Miles introduced the world to modal improvisation in 1959. After that many musicians were rather taken with the new sound world and wanted to apply these sounds to jazz standards.

A few years later, this approach started to become more codified in the Chord Scale Theory taught by Berklee and other places.

CST tropes
- Basic chords are seventh chords.
- An agreement between melody and accompanying harmony giving the overall chord/scale. For instance, if we have the melody note D on a Ab7 chord, we think Ab7#11 and the chord/scale is Lydian Dominant.
- Melodic Minor harmony
- The use of compound interval notation - b9 #9, 11 and so on - for naming notes over chords (basically relating everything to an extended chord of one kind or another.)
- A wider vocabulary of 'harmonic' notes on chord than in more traditional harmony
- Avoid Notes - particularly the use of the 11th on major and dominant chords,

It doesn't actually have anything to do with using actual scales for improvisation (musicians played scales before 1959) - it's more about using the concept of a scale related to a chord as a way of organising harmony.

Basically, if you want to learn bebop like Jimmy Bruno, you can safely steer clear of this stuff, it's pretty irrelevant. Most die hard boppers are pretty dismissive of the relevance of CST to their music.

If you are interested in playing more modern music by jazz musicians of the past 40 or so years (who all went to college and studied CST) you are going to come across a lot of this stuff.

[Jack E Blue]

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. It's a lot to digest.

[citizenk74]

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. It's a lot to digest.

Keep some Tums handy.

[powersurge]

I really think CST should be avoided until you truly understand how harmony works. Your knowledge of harmony should inform your knowledge of CST, not the other way around.

[Jazzstdnt]

Random observations and points follow.

Here we go again. I guess it shouldn't be to much of a surprise really. It's just as easy for non-music majors to get confused about music ed and theory as it is for any other field. What's different is the pontification from the uneducated (sorry but have to be honest) critics.

Folks - CST is not an improv class. It's covered in harmony. Berklee, like most colleges that teach jazz, has classes for both, so everyone can relax. If you want to study improv go to improv class. Berklee does NOT teach it's improv students that their goal is to play the modal root ("final") on the downbeat of every new chord, and then play up and down. OK?

Barry Nettles taught 4 semesters at Berklee. One may still find the text on the internet if they dig around. And yes he has a book at Amazon.com, as was mentioned above. Check it out if you want to know the Chord Scale Theory.

Composers construct music in different ways. Some write a melody first, some write a bass line first, some write the chords first, some do these things simultaneously. When complete however, it all needs to be coherent and competent.

But what if you were not the composer and have no idea what the composer was thinking or intending? Improvisers who do NOT compose the overwhelming majority of tunes that they play need context in order to improvise coherently. CST is but one map, a helpful map, but nothing more.

Unless every chord is a 13th chord with the quality of the 9th and 11th specified you will need to know the tonal (scale) context.

And scales do NOT come from chords, it's the other way around. Harmonized scales yield chords.

All of this presumes of course, that one wishes to play coherent tonic/diatonic or modal music, and be dissonant, non-tonic, chromatic, or outside not by accident, but with intent.

[ragman1]

My problem with CSTS is the modal part. I'm sure I'll get criticized for saying it, but when you have a ii-V-I progression and you are re-grouping and re-naming the same 7 notes, for each chord, that's where it gets kind of silly.

It seems that Jimmy looks at notes against chords as they are rather than creating a scale that includes the note/notes. If you choose to play an Ab against the V in C, It's a flat nine. If you choose to create a scale relative to the key of C that includes the note Ab, that's ok, but a lot of mental work to do on the fly at the speed of music. I *believe* this is Jimmy's thinking/method. He understands scales forward and back as well as any theorist. He just chooses not to use that as the way to improvise.

I love CST and I try my hardest to avoid using it at all times.

Personally, I use CST and I don't use it. Generally speaking, I know what scale goes with what but, like Jimmy, I think in terms of notes against chords.

[MarkInLA]

Chord scale relationship is a method of pointing improvisers and composers in the right and safest direction based on the function of any chord, diatonically and chromatically present at any beat and measure. Chromatic, augmented and diminished scales have no key. B half Dim., the "leading tone" chord in C, is the locrian scale, the 7th mode of the Ionian mode [major scale]. C Min. in G is borrowed from the key of 'G parallel minor' and is said to be in the 'key of the moment'. The system does not force us to always relying on it. It is a map..We can travel across the city using the Thomas Guide, GPS, or by 'to/from' directions at a place's website and they sure will get us to where we're going. The Bill Leavitt, "A Modern Method for Guitar" Berklee College series books are no different. They're just the shortest route to Jazzvill, USA.

[christianm77]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Ragman. That's kinda what I thought it was but wasn't sure. So, it's the thing that Jimmy Bruno is always ranting against.

Again, I would say, if your aim is to master traditional style changes playing using bebop language etc on standards, CST is not really necessary. Jimmy's dislike of the CST approach is not uncommon among veteran straight ahead and bop oriented players and educators.

So, big deal you might think. Why bring it up? Why dislike it as opposed to ignore it?

The thing is CST is absolutely bloody everywhere in books, DVDs, websites and so on, and potential jazz students get exposed to it EARLY - so Jimmy no doubt has an endless stream of students blathering on about SuperLocrians when he's trying to get them to play simple minor key ii-V-I lines or something.

For instance, I teach a number of students who know CST pretty well, but don't have the knowledge of how to construct jazz lines. This actually bears out Jazzstdnt's point - CST is not taught in the improvisation class at Berklee, it is a theory of harmony.

There's a number of ways to do that, I use Barry Harris's approach, others might use Jimmy Bruno's (I don't really know it - I don't follow every approach) or someone else's.

Bop people tend to be (AFAIK) mostly interested in building melodic lines and looking at harmony in a fairly modular 'chunked' way (e.g. II-V's or just V's resolving in various ways) rather than addressing the ins and outs of this or that b9 or #9 on a dominant chord and what it might mean in terms of some theoretical harmonic scale.

Furthermore, things like melodic minor modes and so on aren't really a feature of bebop harmony. While you can understand some lines that way - it seems that's an interpretation after the fact. For instance, Barry Harris, one of the best known bop educators, doesn't even have the concept of melodic minor in his teaching, let alone modes of it.

[bako]

For instance, Barry Harris, one of the best known bop educators, doesn't even have the concept of melodic minor in his teaching, let alone modes of it.

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

[ragman1]

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.

[Jazzstdnt]

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...

[ragman1]

Absolutely. I remember quite often people asking me what me what I thought they should play over xyz and I nearly always began with something like 'Well, technically, according to the book, xyz, BUT...' !

When posters here ask the same question, usually a whole series of posts appear which say 'What's the next chord, what's the context, what's the tune?'. Says it all, really.

CST is okay but a danger when it becomes a rigid set of rules. Bit like religion really. Whoops :-)

[mr. beaumont]

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.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think about CST with a mixture of curiosity and annoyance. I've almost never incorporated a new sound into my playing based on a theoretical consideration.

I am also reminded that transcriptions of the musicians I admire most often show them changing chords (in the solo) a beat or two late, or early, so that analyzing the notes and the chord of the moment makes no sense. The magic in in the anticipation or delay.

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.

But then, there are players I really admire who do think that way and it informs great music.

[ragman1]

to the point where any note can be "explained" against any chord.

Oh, they do that here too :-)