Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Posts 151 to 200 of 224
  1. #151

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    You always go back to this definition of "Theory". It's not the ONLY meaning of the word. The theory is generally an abstraction , an idea , which may be possible to prove or not. Once the theory is proven , it doesn't stop being a theory. All the levels of abstraction in music are theory.

    Theories don't simply remain theories until they're proven.They're just demonstrable as fact.

    At least that's my understanding. I'm just a musician though. Christian is the astrophysicist. Maybe he'll weigh in.
    You're talking science, Matt, not music. Knowing to play G if you're in G isn't a theory, it's plain common sense unless you're into 'free jazz'.

    As for it being 'proven', fine, play Eb when you're in G and see just how proven it is!

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    You're talking science, Matt, not music. Knowing to play G if you're in G isn't a theory, it's plain common sense unless you're into 'free jazz'.

    As for it being 'proven', fine, play Eb when you're in G and see just how proven it is!
    Not science, grammar. I think you are misusing this term. The science analogy was just that, an analogy.

  4. #153

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    There is a level that I agree with you. On the other hand, I find the interaction and integration of two keys to
    be an interesting subject.

    G A B C D E F# + G Ab Bb C D Eb F

    in 3/4, 1st chord gets 2 beats, 2nd chord gets 1 beat.

    X X G D F# B ..... X X G D Eb Bb
    X X G D F# A ..... X X F Bb Eb Ab
    X C X A D G ....... X D G C E X
    G X F# A D X

    I hear this sequence in G major although I am consciously borrowing from Eb major to make a point.
    I KNOW!!!!

    That's the whole argument against CST (whatever that is), that it ties you into rules and regs which you deviate from at your peril, like any other fundamentalist ideology. Also that 'scales' are wonderful whereas we all know they're not.

    I've played all kinds of stuff in the key of G because I don't subscribe to any theory or ideology, including CST. I keep repeating, if it sounds good, it's good. BUT there's such a thing as just playing totally the wrong thing so it sounds stupid. That's what I meant by the Eb example, that's all. It was simply an explanation which you've taken literally.

    Imitation and conformity are non-creative, they destroy initiative.

  5. #154

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Not science, grammar. I think you are misusing this term. The science analogy was just that, an analogy.
    I'm not misusing the term 'theory' in this context.

    Theory | Definition of Theory by Merriam-Webster

  6. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    I'm not misusing the term 'theory' in this context.

    Theory | Definition of Theory by Merriam-Webster
    Holy crap! Are you serious? Music theory is even used as the definition example for number four on the page you just linked . You're arguing that that definition is "wrong" because of the other definition. Words can have multiple different meanings.

  7. #156

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    You always go back to this definition of "Theory". It's not the ONLY meaning of the word. The theory is generally an abstraction , an idea , which may be possible to prove or not. Once the theory is proven , it doesn't stop being a theory. All the levels of abstraction in music are theory.

    Theories don't simply remain theories until they're proven.They're just demonstrable as fact.

    At least that's my understanding. I'm just a musician though. Christian is the astrophysicist. Maybe he'll weigh in.
    I'm not an astrophyscist. I'm a man who studied astrophysics when the universe was half its present size (or so it seems.)

    Anyway, in science a theory is evaluated on the specificity and testability of its predictions.

    I believe this has some validity in musical analysis, although whether an analytical theory that fulfils that criterion aligns with pedagogical needs is a separate question.

    Also my attack on terminology is somewhat motivated by Richard Feynman, an early intellectual hero. Feynman was quite into getting rid of the needless terminology and presenting complex ideas simply.



    Also, he could swing.


  8. #157

    User Info Menu

    i thought he was an astrologist
    White belt
    My Youtube

  9. #158

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758 View Post
    i thought he was an astrologist
    That's my sideline. I do you a horoscope for 20 GBP. PM me please.

  10. #159

    User Info Menu

    He's a lot of things, but not one of those :-)

  11. #160

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    And the relevance of this post is - what exactly?
    The relevance of my post? Oh - that the OP is baseless, and hence irrelevant itself.

    So,

    A few questions:

    1. Who are/were Barry Kenny and Birkett?
    2. What are their credentials?
    3. What are their contributions to Jazz Education?
    4. Did they mention or promote any published jazz education materials that they DID like?
    5. Did they offer any effective methods and means by which one can repeatedly and effectively teach and learn jazz improvisation?



    A couple of points:
    1. It's far easier to criticize than it is to contribute.
    2. When it comes to learning jazz improvisation we spend a lot of time jawboning about what doesn't work.
    3. It would be much more productive for all concerned to point to and discuss a means for positive outcomes.

  12. #161

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Holy crap! Are you serious? Music theory is even used as the definition example for number four on the page you just linked . You're arguing that that definition is "wrong" because of the other definition. Words can have multiple different meanings.
    I said in this context. I know if you want to look up how music works you go to a Music Theory site. The word in that sense means the principles behind the organisation of music... which is complex.

    But the 'Chord-Scale Theory' is not that. That's a method of playing/improvising that someone put together. It's their idea of how it should be done. And, like any idea, it has its limitations which people are only too keen to point out.

    No one is arguing with basic music theory. But they do argue with CST because it's not the same thing.

  13. #162

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post
    The relevance of my post? Oh - that the OP is baseless, and hence irrelevant itself.

    So,

    A few questions:

    1. Who are/were Barry Kenny and Birkett?
    2. What are their credentials?
    3. What are their contributions to Jazz Education?
    4. Did they mention or promote any published jazz education materials that they DID like?
    5. Did they offer any effective methods and means by which one can repeatedly and effectively teach and learn jazz improvisation?
    In terms of who is Barry Harris and who did he teach? I think you are trolling me, lol.

    In terms of Barry's teaching - yes it's a clear methodology and it seems to work. It worked with me.

    If you want to play bebop obviously. Probably not if you want to play super modern jazz, but I think bop is a vital rung in a jazz muso's education, and some pretty modern players have been through his workshops, such as Brad Mehldau.

    At least the Birkett guy wrote a doctoral thesis.

    OTOH you're an internet dude with no context.

    A couple of points:
    1. It's far easier to criticize than it is to contribute.
    2. When it comes to learning jazz improvisation we spend a lot of time jawboning about what doesn't work.
    3. It would be much more productive for all concerned to point to and discuss a means for positive outcomes.
    No academic text, be it a paper, thesis or book, is immune from critique. I have in fact critiqued the OP quote for being a bit vague, and not having references that are easy to pursue. Also his attribution of Mehegan as a founding father of CST is sort of only half true at best.

    So, your defence of CST has been, and please pull me up if this in inaccurate, based on the argument that CST is not well understood and often mis taught? Is that fair? I wouldn't disagree with that.

    But, Ethan Iverson (for instance) makes the same basic critique of - let's call it "scale based beginner pedagogy" - as have many musicians I hold in high regard, Hal Galper, Barry Harris, John Etheridge, so and so forth. The Pat Metheny audio I posted clearly has Pat laying out what the student (a modal noodler by the sounds of it) needs to address, and it is similar, and the advice he gives influenced what I try and teach.

    (I made a separate critique of CST as an analytical tool, but that's different.)

    At some point I'll compile a bibliography of books I've found helpful. You can't go wrong with Barry DVD sets though.

    I really can't imagine you've being paying much attention to anything said, TBH.

  14. #163

    User Info Menu

    This is always the problem with adherents to any fundamentalist idea. They are certain they're right and can't see anything else. Consequently arguing with them is largely pointless.

  15. #164

    User Info Menu

    It worth bearing in mind that sometimes you can debate with someone that is certain they are right, and they are actually right.

  16. #165

    User Info Menu

    I'm 100% certain the world is round. I don't think that makes me a globe fundamentalist (sorry flat earthers)

  17. #166

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    It worth bearing in mind that sometimes you can debate with someone that is certain they are right, and they are actually right.
    Oh, I know. Personally :-)

  18. #167

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    It worth bearing in mind that sometimes you can debate with someone that is certain they are right, and they are actually right.
    Why would I ever bear that in mind? To quote Brother Dave Gardner, "I may not always be right, but by god I ain't never wrong!"

  19. #168

    User Info Menu

    Hey guys in b7b5 shouldn't the F note be a be because it's suppose to be flatted? I'm confused lol

  20. #169

    User Info Menu

    I meant E. Stupid keyboard.

  21. #170

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell View Post
    Why would I ever bear that in mind? To quote Brother Dave Gardner, "I may not always be right, but by god I ain't never wrong!"
    That is a fantastic quote

  22. #171

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell View Post
    Why would I ever bear that in mind? To quote Brother Dave Gardner, "I may not always be right, but by god I ain't never wrong!"
    I grew up listening to Brother Dave. Southern humor at its apex!

    "If you ain't John... I'm GONE!"
    - Lawson
    "Whenever you come near the human race, there's layers and layers of nonsense." - Thornton Wilder, Our Town

  23. #172

    User Info Menu

    This thread is like driving past an accident on your way home from work. You're in a hurry, you've got other things to do, but you slow down and gawk anyway.

    Just my personal experience with using scales. I was taught the scales in Chuck Wayne's system (and his arps) many years ago. I practiced them diligently and I can still play them (although some of his arp fingerings were awkward and I modified them).

    When I started trying to play tunes, I didn't know how to use scales, really, so I relied on arps. TBH, it's still the way I play, mostly, for better, or, mostly, worse.

    Later on, I learned what a tonal center is and I was then able to apply scales. Nobody ever suggested that I practice the scales in any way other than sequentially, up and down, in one position. That made it easy to play a lot of scales, but only from the root, like a European promoter?

    Still later, I was exposed to the idea of a scale for every chord. I tried to integrate that into my playing, but it remained(s) substantially chord-tone based.

    I have read a great many posts suggesting (or seeming to suggest) more sophisticated use of chord scale theory. They seem to fall into two main groups: 1) those I can't understand and 2) those suggesting years of work on combinations of X chord and Y scale, often based on geometric patterns (which I struggle to learn).

    I don't need to be reminded that truly great players have made use of this material. This post isn't about them.

    I found all of this tantalizing but very little of it to be truly useful.

    I'll omit some of the journey here.

    Eventually, I decided to learn, by note-name, the notes in the chords, scales and arps I use. It was, and continues to be, a lot of drill, but I believe it's actually more efficient than a pattern based approach. Most disagree.

    And then, I made a conscious decision not to try to use any pattern or theory based approaches at all. Well, as a goal. Getting there is another matter.

    My idea was to learn the sound of a tune, silently scat sing, and play that. That became the goal and the tempos at which I could approach it gradually increased to medium.

    I'd always gone to jams and gigged occasionally, but, at that point, I started getting more calls.

    In fact, there are some things associated with CST that I became aware of and, arguably, incorporated. For example, playing MM a half step up to get an alt sound. But, if I want to use math for that, I probably sound better if I think m9 arp a half step up rather than the alt scale. For m7b5 I find it convenient at times to think MM a b3 up. But, mostly those considerations are when the tempo is too fast for comfort and I'm scuffling to play something without clams.

    Mimi Fox's book on arps for standards contains a few pages of devices ... this arp against that chord. I wish she'd write a tome with that type of material. Easy to grasp. Easy to work into your playing and every one sounds good (unlike, for example, the vague notion of "modal interchange" where some interchanges sound great and others don't -- still sticking the reader with the work of figuring out what's good). Mimi, btw, among her other talents has a vast encyclopedia of great ideas -- she apparently spent a great deal of time transcribing.

  24. #173

    User Info Menu

    I just play it like I hear it. If I hear an arp, it's an arp. If I hear a scale run, it's a scale run. If it's an altered sound it's an altered sound. That simple really.

    Rhythm and phrasing dictates a lot of what and how much.

  25. #174

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    I just play it like I hear it. If I hear an arp, it's an arp. If I hear a scale run, it's a scale run. If it's an altered sound it's an altered sound. That simple really.

    Rhythm and phrasing dictates a lot of what and how much.
    Since jazz boils down to the ability to imagine an interesting line and play it right then, well, you're there.

    All the theory is about learning to imagine more interesting lines.

  26. #175

    User Info Menu

    "She was okay until me and Junior tried to turn her head around". "I just shoved it up into Race".
    I saw Brother Dave on tour while I was in college. About 5'4", if that, and brought a trash can to the mic, which he used for an ashtray while he chainsmoked throught the act. "I'd smoke chains if I could light 'em". I used to have several of his LPs, and they're now available on YouTube.
    Last edited by sgosnell; 03-07-2019 at 07:02 PM.

  27. #176

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell View Post
    "He was okay until me and Junior tried to turn his head around". "I just shoved it up into Race".
    I saw Brother Dave on tour while I was in college. About 5'4", if that, and brought a trash can to the mic, which he used for an ashtray while he chainsmoked throught the act. "I'd smoke chains if I could light 'em". I used to have several of his LPs, and they're now available on YouTube.
    Gosh I could actually tell the story to those punch lines! I'll have to hunt for some YouTube fun.

    Then there's Wendy Bagwell and Jerry Clower... but I always thought they were second-order talent compared to Bro. Dave.
    - Lawson
    "Whenever you come near the human race, there's layers and layers of nonsense." - Thornton Wilder, Our Town

  28. #177

    User Info Menu


  29. #178

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell View Post
    Why would I ever bear that in mind? To quote Brother Dave Gardner, "I may not always be right, but by god I ain't never wrong!"
    Ol' Brother Dave! I heard him as a kid. Often quoted by my uncles and other elders. "Rejoice, dear hearts!"
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  30. #179

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    In terms of who is Barry Harris and who did he teach? I think you are trolling me, lol.

    In terms of Barry's teaching - yes it's a clear methodology and it seems to work. It worked with me.

    If you want to play bebop obviously. Probably not if you want to play super modern jazz, but I think bop is a vital rung in a jazz muso's education, and some pretty modern players have been through his workshops, such as Brad Mehldau.

    At least the Birkett guy wrote a doctoral thesis.

    OTOH you're an internet dude with no context.



    No academic text, be it a paper, thesis or book, is immune from critique. I have in fact critiqued the OP quote for being a bit vague, and not having references that are easy to pursue. Also his attribution of Mehegan as a founding father of CST is sort of only half true at best.

    So, your defence of CST has been, and please pull me up if this in inaccurate, based on the argument that CST is not well understood and often mis taught? Is that fair? I wouldn't disagree with that.

    But, Ethan Iverson (for instance) makes the same basic critique of - let's call it "scale based beginner pedagogy" - as have many musicians I hold in high regard, Hal Galper, Barry Harris, John Etheridge, so and so forth. The Pat Metheny audio I posted clearly has Pat laying out what the student (a modal noodler by the sounds of it) needs to address, and it is similar, and the advice he gives influenced what I try and teach.

    (I made a separate critique of CST as an analytical tool, but that's different.)

    At some point I'll compile a bibliography of books I've found helpful. You can't go wrong with Barry DVD sets though.

    I really can't imagine you've being paying much attention to anything said, TBH.
    My issue with the OP was the quoted paper, not you.

    I've stated clearly in this thread and others was CST was and was not. The authors did too. It's a jazz theory/harmony course/text, not an Improv one. And of course we know that improv, arranging, composition are founded in theory, but they are theory applied, not theory itself.

    So how many times must it be said?

    I think that it's difficult for people who did not attend a university music school to understand and relate to this, especially if one has played a long while and is a self taught or mostly self taught musician. All these topics become one at some point, which is probably the goal.

    But the criticism is leveled at the schools and the educational process and content - colleges that is - so THAT is the world we are talking about. How educational material is organized, planned, sequenced, carried out, etc.

    If one goes through such a school they will understand what it means to have these topics separated, explored in depth in a certain sequence, for multiple levels and years, with different homework assignments, different instructors, different books/materials, with the requirement to demonstrate learnings quickly for a given piece of instruction, and all with tight deadlines. In that instance, and if the person in question is motivated, they will remember what was taught in their improv class, what was expected, how they achieved results or not, and what they took away from it in the long run.

    This idea that a "scales only" pedagogy occurred in the big schools in their multi-level improv curriculum is so far from reality that it's just not worth talking about, so I'll say "see ya".

    Thanks for the discussion.

  31. #180

    User Info Menu

    Yea... CST is not that complicated.... becoming aware of all the scales, arpeggios... chords etc that can be used with CST organization is. How many understand Functional Harmony.... you can't understand CST without understanding Functional Harmony.

    CST is Functional Harmony expanded with Modal applications... Possible relationships between Chords and Scales with Reference to a Tonal center or Target. Function is based on guidelines of movement... How and why note react to each other and which notes control the reactions. The Modal aspect is the changing of the organization for movement.

    If you just call all the traditional organization Maj/Min Functional harmony... right... The melodic and harmonic organization is based on Ionian... Maj... even Minor becomes Maj and everything else is some type of embellishment. We all know the history... all the BS..It's all good... That how most of us play, compose, arrange... make analysis etc... it works... has for centuries and will continue to do so ...yada yada.

    But there is/are more possible understanding(s) and organization of those understanding... Traditional theory and harmony won't cover everything... so you get CST or Possible Modal Functional Harmony.

    Nothing will help one play if they don't get their technical skills together....

  32. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    CST is Functional Harmony expanded with Modal applications... Possible relationships between Chords and Scales with Reference to a Tonal center or Target.
    Yeah. I think that's the most common criticism I read on the forum: "Why do you need CST for basic functional harmony? Why do you need CST for a simple II-V-I?" etc.

    But if I understand, you're saying that's not quite the POINT.

  33. #182

    User Info Menu


  34. #183

    User Info Menu

    Hey let’s talk about politics!

  35. #184

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post
    My issue with the OP was the quoted paper, not you.

    I've stated clearly in this thread and others was CST was and was not. The authors did too. It's a jazz theory/harmony course/text, not an Improv one. And of course we know that improv, arranging, composition are founded in theory, but they are theory applied, not theory itself.

    So how many times must it be said?

    I think that it's difficult for people who did not attend a university music school to understand and relate to this, especially if one has played a long while and is a self taught or mostly self taught musician. All these topics become one at some point, which is probably the goal.

    But the criticism is leveled at the schools and the educational process and content - colleges that is - so THAT is the world we are talking about. How educational material is organized, planned, sequenced, carried out, etc.

    If one goes through such a school they will understand what it means to have these topics separated, explored in depth in a certain sequence, for multiple levels and years, with different homework assignments, different instructors, different books/materials, with the requirement to demonstrate learnings quickly for a given piece of instruction, and all with tight deadlines. In that instance, and if the person in question is motivated, they will remember what was taught in their improv class, what was expected, how they achieved results or not, and what they took away from it in the long run.

    This idea that a "scales only" pedagogy occurred in the big schools in their multi-level improv curriculum is so far from reality that it's just not worth talking about, so I'll say "see ya".

    Thanks for the discussion.
    Yeah I don’t think we’re in any fundamental disagreement. I also happen to think the OP is actually talking about the type of CST vulgaris (if you like) that you do come across irl.

    All of the other stuff I’ve posted that’s critical of scales based pedagogy - Ethridge, Iverson etc - is based on that. I don’t think they have a problem with the more educated applications of the theory. Well, perhaps Ethan.

    There’s a critique I feel that can be made of CST proper. But that’s separate.

    I also feel in some institutions CST is poorly taught, but the people I know who have studied at Berklee rank the quality of teaching as one of the high points of attending.

    However.... not all jazz programs are Berklee. Again, that’s a separate point.
    Last edited by christianm77; 03-08-2019 at 04:48 AM.

  36. #185

    User Info Menu

    I have a theory about all this but I'm keeping it to myself for now.
    Attached Images Attached Images Chord Scale Theory Critique (Not Mine :-))-jurassic-park-cast-jpg 
    "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates
    “Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun.” - Alan Wilson Watts

  37. #186

    User Info Menu

    Yeah. I think that's the most common criticism I read on the forum: "Why do you need CST for basic functional harmony? Why do you need CST for a simple II-V-I?" etc.

    But if I understand, you're saying that's not quite the POINT.
    Matt,

    What is your definition of "functional harmony" in this instance?
    Staying within a singular major or minor scale?
    If so, then you need not think about other scales because the note collection is stable.
    You do need to be aware that each diatonic chord change, alters the meaning of the same notes within the key center.
    In a diatonic II V I in C, an A note is the 5th of D, the 9th of G and the 6th of C.

    Let's say instead of this I play the notes A and Bb on Dm7, Bb and Ab on the G7 and G,F# and E on the Cma7.
    There is now some integration of notes beyond the basic scale within the same functional diatonic cadence.
    How to describe this then? Are these just "added chromatics"? Borrowing from other scales and if so, not a bad thing
    to know from where? Is it a sound that is heard from time spent listening? To me they are darker colors and a brighter
    one for major, I know the possible source scales, but it doesn't require conscious naming.

    What if soloist implies progression Dm7 G7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Cma7 over original chords?
    It is still a simple functional cadence but additional melodic info has been added from the parallel minor.

    Possible Modal Functional Harmony
    Reg,

    If one were to play and stay within a singular mode out of context, there are basic progressional and cadential
    moves that define the uniqueness of said mode. If I understand you correctly, are you talking
    about the integration of this modal progressional language into the starting reference music?

  38. #187

    User Info Menu

    Even the most theoretical teachers (I'm thinking of Fareed Haque right now) will tell you that, no matter how simple or complex you take it, it's either melodic, or it isn't.

    I've been playing for 42 years now, and I've played with A LOT of people, and what I have come to learn is that many players can just see a chord or scale ONE TIME, play it, and then it's "in the fingers" for life.

    Others of us require STRUCTURE--we have to see how it all lays out, what goes with it, what scale is it in, is it a 7th, 9th 13th, sus4,? etc.

    And here's the thing--one type of player can never understand the approach of the other. To one type, all the theory is a useless waste of time, and to the other, it's the key that unlocks the door.

  39. #188

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    Matt,
    If I understand you correctly, are you talking
    about the integration of this modal progressional language into the starting reference music?
    Might someone explain this in plainer terms? I can't understand it.

  40. #189

    User Info Menu

    Watching Gary Burton's lecture (posted recently on a similar thread) was extremely illuminating for me. It allowed me to gain some first hand insight into "an insider's" view of CST.
    After watching the video I am under the impression that:
    1- CST is not some alternative musical paradigm that informs every note choice of a (CST) player.
    2- CST is not the key to understanding some alternative harmonic universe that's completely novel and un-interpretable by the conventional tonal harmony devices.

    His view of CST seems to be far more pragmatic. He described CST as notes that fall between chord tones that he intuitively discovered when he was a teen.
    He also said he started by first playing around chord tones. So he probably trained his ears by focusing on chord tone lines well before he was thinking more scalarly. Anyone who thinks learning improvisation should be approached differently is completely out of their minds.
    Given that he learned jazz improvisation by playing chord tones, why he starts his lectures on improvisation with 10 scales completely escapes me. Perhaps he assumes every serious student of jazz must have already mastered outlining harmony. I have no idea.

  41. #190

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Perhaps he assumes every serious student of jazz must have already mastered outlining harmony. I have no idea.
    I suspect that's probably it.

  42. #191

    User Info Menu

    rpjazzguitar,

    Not a good thing when the question asked is perhaps even more confusing than the answer. Sorry about that.

    Each mode has it's own progressional language (chord sequences) that create the unique character.

    For example aeolian might use bVI bVII Im as a path back to the I chord.
    In a C major context that gives us Abma7 Bb7 Cma7

    phrygian might use bII bVIIm Im as a path back to the I chord.
    In a C major context that gives us Dbma7 Bbm7 Cma7

    III VI II V from harmonic minor is IIIma7+ bVIma7 IIm7b5 V7
    Targeting C major give Ebma7+ Abma7 Dm7b5 G7 Cma7

    In my mind, I think of common moves from various other modes integrated into the key center.
    Anyway, this was a question I posed for Reg, who sees modal applications a few levels deeper than I.

  43. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    Matt,

    What is your definition of "functional harmony" in this instance?
    Staying within a singular major or minor scale?
    If so, then you need not think about other scales because the note collection is stable.
    You do need to be aware that each diatonic chord change, alters the meaning of the same notes within the key center.
    In a diatonic II V I in C, an A note is the 5th of D, the 9th of G and the 6th of C.

    Let's say instead of this I play the notes A and Bb on Dm7, Bb and Ab on the G7 and G,F# and E on the Cma7.
    There is now some integration of notes beyond the basic scale within the same functional diatonic cadence.
    How to describe this then? Are these just "added chromatics"? Borrowing from other scales and if so, not a bad thing
    to know from where? Is it a sound that is heard from time spent listening? To me they are darker colors and a brighter
    one for major, I know the possible source scales, but it doesn't require conscious naming.

    What if soloist implies progression Dm7 G7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Cma7 over original chords?
    It is still a simple functional cadence but additional melodic info has been added from the parallel minor.



    Reg,

    If one were to play and stay within a singular mode out of context, there are basic progressional and cadential
    moves that define the uniqueness of said mode. If I understand you correctly, are you talking
    about the integration of this modal progressional language into the starting reference music?
    Missed this before...Yeah, I misuse the word "functional" occasionally and have began called out on it a few times. I'll try to tighten up. :-)

    Maybe just straight diatonic? Vanilla diatonic major? I don't know. Dorian- mixolydian- Ionian is always mentioned . Basically, thinking modally for that when you're in a single diatonic key center. It's always harped on, and is somewhat beside the point for true modal thought processes.

    Anyway, what's a better term for what I'm attempting to say , if you understand it? :-)

    All the best.

  44. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Watching Gary Burton's lecture (posted recently on a similar thread) was extremely illuminating for me. It allowed me to gain some first hand insight into "an insider's" view of CST.
    After watching the video I am under the impression that:
    1- CST is not some alternative musical paradigm that informs every note choice of a (CST) player.
    2- CST is not the key to understanding some alternative harmonic universe that's completely novel and un-interpretable by the conventional tonal harmony devices.

    His view of CST seems to be far more pragmatic. He described CST as notes that fall between chord tones that he intuitively discovered when he was a teen.
    He also said he started by first playing around chord tones. So he probably trained his ears by focusing on chord tone lines well before he was thinking more scalarly. Anyone who thinks learning improvisation should be approached differently is completely out of their minds.
    Given that he learned jazz improvisation by playing chord tones, why he starts his lectures on improvisation with 10 scales completely escapes me. Perhaps he assumes every serious student of jazz must have already mastered outlining harmony. I have no idea.
    Yeah. Did you watch his comments on the ensembles? He talked to a player about learning the harmony over a given chord to facilitate more free, subconscious improv etc. Talking about knowing the chord scale.

    But if I remember correctly, these are all more modern tunes anyway. At least not GASB...

  45. #194

    User Info Menu

    Matt,

    In general, don't look to me for textbook definitions. I tend to gravitate towards an expansive
    literal meanings of a word and run with it. In my personal universe, functional music is
    any movements from here to an intended destination that sounds convincing to at least one person.
    I try to stifle myself from saying such things in public.

    Key center music is certainly functional yet does also move beyond the confines of a singular major or minor scale.
    Are modal cadences functional, better ask someone else to learn where the lines are traditionally drawn.

  46. #195

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Missed this before...Yeah, I misuse the word "functional" occasionally and have began called out on it a few times. I'll try to tighten up. :-)

    Maybe just straight diatonic? Vanilla diatonic major? I don't know. Dorian- mixolydian- Ionian is always mentioned . Basically, thinking modally for that when you're in a single diatonic key center. It's always harped on, and is somewhat beside the point for true modal thought processes.

    Anyway, what's a better term for what I'm attempting to say , if you understand it? :-)

    All the best.
    Functional harmony was never purely diatonic.

    You can find that type of major/minor interchange in late 17th century music.

    Modulations to V and IV were built into the hexachord system which itself was inherited from the middle ages.

    Modal people would equate some scale mutations of the period to Lydian and Mixolydian....

    Plus the Neapolitan sixth which is what - a Phrygian modal interchange?

    Not that that is how I view it, but a CST person might see it and hear it that way. It's very ahistorical to do so though.

  47. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Functional harmony was never purely diatonic.

    You can find that type of major/minor interchange in late 17th century music.

    Modulations to V and IV were built into the hexachord system which itself was inherited from the middle ages.

    Modal people would equate some scale mutations of the period to Lydian and Mixolydian....

    Plus the Neapolitan sixth which is what - a Phrygian modal interchange?

    Not that that is how I view it, but a CST person might see it and hear it that way. It's very ahistorical to do so though.
    What's the theory word for not-modal harmony.

  48. #197

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    Ed Byrne's reduced melody process is really eye opening...it's my go to for "tough" tunes.

    I think it's the single most helpful improvisation framework method I've ever looked at.
    Being thick headed as I am I can only interpret this as meaning to improvise around the melody.
    "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates
    “Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun.” - Alan Wilson Watts

  49. #198

    User Info Menu

    Which one came first, Berklee CST or post bebop jazz harmony

  50. #199

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Which one came first, Berklee CST or post bebop jazz harmony
    The point being:
    Chord-scale theory couldn't have come first unless it was invented as a reference for a music that didn't exist yet.
    If post-bop jazz harmony came first, then people who invented and played it didn't need CST to be able to do so.

    PS. I'm not that narcissistic usually, sorry for quoting myself.

  51. #200

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Which one came first, Berklee CST or post bebop jazz harmony

    the latter