Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Posts 201 to 247 of 247
  1. #201

    User Info Menu

    So yes bako... that is one possibility...

    Personally my understanding and use of CST, along with everything else... is from composing and arranging...

    It's obviously not needed... but CST is derived from jazz common practice harmony from the 60's on.

    I don't see any difference between melodic and harmonic.... I can make choices and use a specific harmonic or melodic musical organization for guideline that control the function and choices of complete note collections for every note in a horizontal space...
    A tune, a section of a tune... a phrase etc... what ever I choose. CST is just another possible organization for making and organizing those choices. ( Besides maj/min functional harmony...Ionian). I use modes and modal functional guidelines, I use melodic minor and it's functional guidelines and I also use Blue Notes and their possible functional influence on any of the above.

    I mean...it's not like I don't use everything together all the time... When you play a tune or arrange etc... CST is just a collection of basic harmonic and melodic possibilities that are from existing jazz common practice.

    Most seem to understand and use subs... relative and parallel relationships.... How do you harmonically frame Blue notes.

    If you expand the concept of Blue Notes... ... ahh... Most think of improve as embellishing melodic, harmonic and rhythmic ideas etc... think of embellishing aspects of theory, or harmony etc...

    When you embellish while soloing or comping... do you have organization... or do you repeat memorized lines and chord patterns... I'm stretching it but... theory and existing functional harmony are also embellishable... just like using subs or related harmony...it's a new result by way of expanding the existing subject with organization.

    Just think of CST as possible harmonic and melodic relationships... that expand traditional chord patterns and melodic figures that use chord tones... with organization. Possible references... that imply other possible choices...that are related and from jazz common practice... beyond triad and 7th chord organization...

    Yes not all jazz... but the last 60 years.


    Back to real world... if you don't have technique... and good ears.... put your time into those aspects of playing.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #202

    User Info Menu

    It often feels like words aren't good enough to describe music. Go figure

    Wiki had three definitions of "diatonic".

    Apparently, no two people agree on exactly what "function harmony" encompasses. Apparently, we can agree on G7 going to Cmaj, but after that, it seems to get more contentious.

    Thanks to Bako for the explanation of modal progressions, as referred to in the phrase "modal progressional language into the starting reference music?". I still don't understand the phrase as a whole. It seems like a Berklee education is necessary to fully understand this sort of language.

    Somebody brought up Feynman earlier. He was an extraordinarily plain spoken man (this is intended as a high compliment). I think it stemmed partly from his personality and partly because he understood the material so well. He was a percussionist. Too bad. If he'd played a chord instrument we might have the Feynman lectures on music.


    '


  4. #203

    User Info Menu

    Thanks to Bako for the explanation of modal progressions, as referred to in the phrase "modal progressional language into the starting reference music?". I still don't understand the phrase as a whole. It seems like a Berklee education is necessary to fully understand this sort of language.
    modal progressional language = chord sequences derived from various modes that
    portray whatever is unique to that mode.

    starting reference music = the basic song however we conceive it

    Again my apologies, sometimes I talk funny. I'm from the Bronx but they bare no blame.

  5. #204

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    modal progressional language = chord sequences derived from various modes that
    portray whatever is unique to that mode.

    starting reference music = the basic song however we conceive it

    Again my apologies, sometimes I talk funny. I'm from the Bronx but they bare no blame.
    We're honing in on it!

    Now, can I trouble the forum for an example? How about a tune and some chords?

    Forgive me for seeming dense. I'm from Brooklyn.

  6. #205

    User Info Menu


  7. #206

    User Info Menu

    Joe Henderson was a Barry Harris student of course ;-)

    Not sure how he came up with that tune though lol

    I’m thinking that without a thorough exploration of the 60s music (for me) it’s hard to be specific about the development of modal playing and how it evolved into CST.

    Time to hit the Wayne tunes......

  8. #207

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    I get that Inner Urge is not tonal center based. But, I'm unclear about how thinking "modal progressional language" illuminates anything. What am I missing?

  9. #208

    User Info Menu

    Yes... Joe was classmate of Barry... not student.

    So anyway it seems that most don't get music concepts from theory etc... point of view, (reference)... so for the thick side of Brooklyn ....

    Take Blue Bossa... Kenny Dorham... but almost feels as though Joe composed.....

    So kennys version used basic functional harmony, right. Key of Cmin.(Ebmaj)..// I / IV-7 / II-7b5 V7 /... Then either modulate, call Eb-7 Ab7 a II V of IVmaj,(Abmaj7) or use Relative Diatonic 3rd relative and parallel relationships / then II-7b5 V7 I. All pretty maj/min functional organization.

    So using modal CST possibilities... I can also call C-... a Imin7 chord.... but Dorian... not aeolian. Choosing Dorian creates a different collection of Diatonic chords to work with... and when one actually play music in a jazz style.... all the relationships... subs, chord patterns etc... can also change....

    For those of you who need more... take the Cmin7 and makeup chord vamps... Chord Patterns that reflect (harmonically Imply) the C-7 as a I chord.... here are two standard vamps...

    1) // C-7 C-6 (or F7) / D-7 G7b13#9 // this chord patterns implies Cmin as tonal Target... the I chord as DORIAN (use of CST)

    2) // C-7 Abmaj7 / D-7b5 G7b9 // this chord pattern implies Cmin as tonal target... the I chord as AEOLIAN. Maj/Min Functional Harmony... Ionian with embellishments etc...

    Just a note... most don't play the chords that vanilla etc... the bVI chord usually becomes dominant.

    So take the next step... play a latin Montuno to reflect the two examples.

    So each example uses a different choice for harmonically organizing the Tonal target of Cmin.

    I get it.... you can also just change the notes etc... but that is very different... and musicians can hear and understand the difference...

    The further one expands a REFERENCE... creating extended RELATIONSJHIPS with that TONAL TARGET of Cmin... the more the MUSICAL ORGANIZATION that controls your expanding .... improvisation changes.

    The simple example using the above tune.... The basic difference in vamps is the Diatonic VI or bVI root chord... When I actually play those examples... I don't just play The VI or bVI chord... I IMPLY that chord by calling it a TONAL TARGET... and there is a big difference between implying G7 or Gb7...musically which gets back to the use of CST choices for original Cmin as I chord.
    So if I continue in the same way... changing the Harmonic organization of My I chord... I could have more different results.

    ****This is where most of you come in.... You start with pitch collections, SCALES choices that are given for Chords in different Harmonic examples.... Chord progression, chord Patterns... Tunes.

    So the scales are the results from using Modal Interchange, (Borrowing)...to create possible Functional labeling of chords.... The Scales are just horizontal versions of complete chords.

    So who cares now right... the modal application is just ONE possibility... You can expand the harmonic organization... with use of Blue Notes Melodic Minor, Harmonic Maj.... whatever one chooses and can pull it off.

    So with composition and arranging... it's pretty easy, slow stop time, etc... but when performing... you know at the speed of Jazz.... you need to have all the possibilities internalized,(memorization approach) or understand the concepts and apply LIVE etc... Obviously using both approaches works best.

    Please don't take comments personal... rp... and Brooklyn etc... We're suppose to enjoy music ... right

  10. #209

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    Yes... Joe was classmate of Barry... not student.
    I heard Barry in person tell a story with him teaching Joe.

  11. #210

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by don_oz
    I heard Barry in person tell a story with him teaching Joe.
    *whistles nonchalantly, grabs popcorn*

  12. #211

    User Info Menu

    I would say that what sound a bit like tall tales from Barry tend to check out. He was a guru figure already in Detroit as a young man. It’s not always possible to understand these connections formally in the pedagogical sense, but James Jamerson credited Barry as being his teacher for instance.

  13. #212

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    Yes... Joe was classmate of Barry... not student.

    So anyway it seems that most don't get music concepts from theory etc... point of view, (reference)... so for the thick side of Brooklyn ....

    Take Blue Bossa... Kenny Dorham... but almost feels as though Joe composed.....

    So kennys version used basic functional harmony, right. Key of Cmin.(Ebmaj)..// I / IV-7 / II-7b5 V7 /... Then either modulate, call Eb-7 Ab7 a II V of IVmaj,(Abmaj7) or use Relative Diatonic 3rd relative and parallel relationships / then II-7b5 V7 I. All pretty maj/min functional organization.

    So using modal CST possibilities... I can also call C-... a Imin7 chord.... but Dorian... not aeolian. Choosing Dorian creates a different collection of Diatonic chords to work with... and when one actually play music in a jazz style.... all the relationships... subs, chord patterns etc... can also change....

    For those of you who need more... take the Cmin7 and makeup chord vamps... Chord Patterns that reflect (harmonically Imply) the C-7 as a I chord.... here are two standard vamps...

    1) // C-7 C-6 (or F7) / D-7 G7b13#9 // this chord patterns implies Cmin as tonal Target... the I chord as DORIAN (use of CST)

    2) // C-7 Abmaj7 / D-7b5 G7b9 // this chord pattern implies Cmin as tonal target... the I chord as AEOLIAN. Maj/Min Functional Harmony... Ionian with embellishments etc...

    Just a note... most don't play the chords that vanilla etc... the bVI chord usually becomes dominant.

    So take the next step... play a latin Montuno to reflect the two examples.

    So each example uses a different choice for harmonically organizing the Tonal target of Cmin.

    I get it.... you can also just change the notes etc... but that is very different... and musicians can hear and understand the difference...

    The further one expands a REFERENCE... creating extended RELATIONSJHIPS with that TONAL TARGET of Cmin... the more the MUSICAL ORGANIZATION that controls your expanding .... improvisation changes.

    The simple example using the above tune.... The basic difference in vamps is the Diatonic VI or bVI root chord... When I actually play those examples... I don't just play The VI or bVI chord... I IMPLY that chord by calling it a TONAL TARGET... and there is a big difference between implying G7 or Gb7...musically which gets back to the use of CST choices for original Cmin as I chord.
    So if I continue in the same way... changing the Harmonic organization of My I chord... I could have more different results.

    ****This is where most of you come in.... You start with pitch collections, SCALES choices that are given for Chords in different Harmonic examples.... Chord progression, chord Patterns... Tunes.

    So the scales are the results from using Modal Interchange, (Borrowing)...to create possible Functional labeling of chords.... The Scales are just horizontal versions of complete chords.

    So who cares now right... the modal application is just ONE possibility... You can expand the harmonic organization... with use of Blue Notes Melodic Minor, Harmonic Maj.... whatever one chooses and can pull it off.

    So with composition and arranging... it's pretty easy, slow stop time, etc... but when performing... you know at the speed of Jazz.... you need to have all the possibilities internalized,(memorization approach) or understand the concepts and apply LIVE etc... Obviously using both approaches works best.

    Please don't take comments personal... rp... and Brooklyn etc... We're suppose to enjoy music ... right
    I appreciate the explanation. The example made it much clearer. Still some technical language I'd need examples for, but better.

    The way I learned this sort of thing, or something close to it, and just dealing with major scale harmony for the moment, is that, per Warren Nunes, Cm is either a I type or a II type. I already posted on what he meant by that.

    It's a I type in the key of Eb, which makes it interchangeable with Ebmaj7 Gm7 and Bbmaj7#11.

    Because in Warren's system vim is either I or II type, it could also be considered interchangeable with Fm7 and Abmaj7. The issue is mainly, do you want an A or an Ab?

    It's a II type in Bb, where it's interchangeable with Ebmaj7 and Gm7.

    It is also a I type in Ab, making it interchangeable with Abmaj7, Ebmaj7 and Fm7.

    It can also emerge from MM or HM minor harmony and other places. In MM harmony it would be interchangeable with every chord generated, for example, by the C MM scale, per Mark Levine's theory of no avoid note in MM. So, Dsusb9, Ebmaj7#5 etc.

    Which gets a little complicated. Not that complicated is bad. If you can get all that in your mind and under your fingers, that's great. We've all heard Reg play. But, Andres Varady sounds great and knows none of this, except if he knows it by sound.

    What can simplify it, perhaps, it is the usual thing about minor chords, which is they're all the same except for how they handle the b2, 6s and 7s. So, in Blue Bossa the root is C. Do you want to hear a Db? And, among Ab A Bb and B, which do you want?

    It strikes me that Reg's approach is better organized than just thinking about all the individual note choices. Perhaps that might tend to make a solo more cohesive if you had practiced things the way his system seems to imply. OTOH, you'd also have to be careful that it's all internalized by sound or it could be constricting.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 03-09-2019 at 04:18 PM.

  14. #213

    User Info Menu

    Also Barry is 8 years older than Joe, I am not sure how they would be classmates.

    By the way Barry mentions giving lessons to Joe in this interview:

    Barry Harris: Teacher Man - JazzTimes

  15. #214

    User Info Menu

    yea... barry always seem to be his way or the highway. I've met and performed with Joe henderson, know many old working jazz musicians who have old dirt etc... but Henderson' arranging and compostions... tend to be very different from BH... at least after his bebop days.

    I obviously don't like the BH approach or his teaching style and concepts... I do respect and appreciate his contributions... it's just a personal choice... I do like Joe Henderson's approach. Joe was also a pianist... .. remember the Joe Henderson and Jonny Griffin gigs... late 80's...

  16. #215

    User Info Menu

    This thread deserves this.

    Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 03-10-2019 at 08:21 PM.

  17. #216

    User Info Menu

    Turn out the lights...ZZZZZZZZZZZ

  18. #217

    User Info Menu


  19. #218

    User Info Menu

    I understand that some people like that this thread is dying but just wanted to share this blogpost I came across:

    Where Jazz Theory Got It Wrong – Steve Treseler

    And this discussion is also pretty interesting:
    So I posted this as a comment to another... - Darcy James Argue | Facebook

  20. #219

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    There's nothing wrong with CST. When I heard people knocking it constantly I wondered what they were on about. Then I read an article or two and realised that CST wasn't the culprit, it was the way those people were thinking that was wrong.

    They were using some sort of blueprint to choose notes with and generally doing it chord by chord, like a jigsaw. So Dm7-G7-CM7 must be, and can only be, the usual dorian-mixolydian-ionian. Except that, over each of those chords, CST actually prescribes a possible number of scales/modes and other means of improvisation. So it's no wonder they were lost.

    The educated musical mind can employ what notes it likes over chords to produce the effects it wants. The inexperienced mind needs to be told what to do and copies without insight. It's not the fault of CST. Outcomes depend on the mindset of the pupil, and that depends on knowledge and experience. If CST is to be taught, that should be borne in mind. So a lot depends on the instructor.

    CST gives you the ingredients but not the recipe. It's not trying, or supposed, to provide any recipes. How the ingredients are mixed and cooked together determines the dish, not the ingredients by themselves.

    Also, with experience, any good cook can happily add, subtract or alter the ingredients once they know what they're doing. Musical improvisation is not a thing set in stone. When CST becomes a fundamentalist ideology then one has misunderstood its purpose entirely.
    Excellent

  21. #220

    User Info Menu

    Where Jazz Theory Got It Wrong – Steve Treseler

    Is he trying to sell his book? He takes great pains to point out how the usual scales are just a 'jumble' but doesn't give the alternative. No respect for that.

    In any case, only naive beginners (or only naive non-beginners!) would actually play it like that. He's presenting a deceptive premise, presumably to sell his book. $35 with price reduction!

    Even less respect for that.

  22. #221

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rintincop
    Excellent
    Thank you. That was #2!

  23. #222

    User Info Menu

    The way Barry Harris has you play scales descending from the 7th sounds pretty melodic to me. And he lets 2 scales cover the 4 chords of I VI ii V, then add the extra bebop passing tone when needed, play in good time, do a bit of arpeggios that resolve into the next chord (Burt Lignon) , add some triplet turns (Barry), target some 3rds and 7ths, mess it up (Burt Lignon) , add in some blues notes (Oscar), alternate between highly chromatic phrases and sparse chord tone melodies (per Chick Corea) , etc .... A scale really is just the chord tones with the relative passing tones filled in.

    ||: C A7 | D-7 G7 :||
    How to play scales in a way to sound melodic (per Barry)
    Practice descending from the 7th of a C major scale to the tonic for bar 1
    and practice descending from the 7th of a G7 scale to its root for bar 2

  24. #223

    User Info Menu

    Absolutely, it's not about trying to follow some rigid set of rules.

    I mean, at the very beginning of, say, maths we have to learn our numbers. Then maybe the multiplication tables, etc etc. All that's pretty mechanical, like learning to write and spell words. There's nothing wrong with learning the basics in a structured way; it helps it stick.

    But after that the magic starts... Creativity and technique are different. Technique without creativity is rather pointless. And one never stops learning, of course.

  25. #224

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch

    playing with Chord Scales (Ionian, Dorian, Lydian, Lydianb7...modes) does not lead to any interesting melodic lines, often starting with the tonic, and playing straight phrases without melodic permutations, various and larges intervals.
    Uh oh. Here we go again.

    Can you cite any literature that claims that what you have listed above is the definition of CST?

    No, and neither can anyone else, because it isn't.

  26. #225

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Uh oh. Here we go again.

    Can you cite any literature that claims that what you have listed above is the definition of CST?

    No, and neither can anyone else, because it isn't.
    Off the top of my head, I think Mark Levine's book has a definition that's very close to Patlotch's post you quoted.

    I personally do not consider chord-scales a theory. It's a pedagogical conception.
    Chord-scale "theory" is a way of describing various choices of non-chord tones that can be used over a chord in various contexts. Of course chord tones will always work. They are being played anyway.

    It's not a theory as it doesn't propose specific rules for making these choices. Choices of non-chord tones are stylistic and subjective.

    So what's the use for chord-scales? If you have a particular set of choices in mind, you can use chord-scales to describe these choices. That's all. There are of course other ways to talk about the choices of non-chord tones. Chord-scales are just one approach.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 01-03-2020 at 05:07 PM.

  27. #226

    User Info Menu

    The definition about is my own personal interpretation. If there is an non-controversial literature that defines chord-scale theory differently, please post. I'd be happy to read it.

  28. #227

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    The definition about is my own personal interpretation. If there is an non-controversial literature that defines chord-scale theory differently, please post. I'd be happy to read it.
    Sure man. Just check out the work of Barry Nettles who was the head honcho harmony professor guy at Berklee for a number of years. (link below). For the record, he refers to it as the "so-called CST". The current harmony folks at Berklee don't align 100% with Barry's theories (one told me) but they're still pretty darned close. Anyway, I think that if you'll read the book, and at minimum the preface and introduction, you'll see that it's just another term for Harmony and Theory, but targeted to jazz music. And just like traditional theory and harmony it applies to composition, arranging, and last but not least - improvisation.

    But enough of that.

    In large measure the problem with the CST title is - ignorant guitarists! We guitarists are some of the least capable when it comes to theory and harmony, both in classical and contemporary schools. Ironic isn't it? (Although vocalists have us beat on the dummy scale. I was both a guitar major and a classical vocal music major for a time).

    In other words, when we electric guitarists "evolve" from playing blues and pentatonic stuff on pop, rock, and blues music to something more "progressive", we say - "hey man, what scale do I need to use for my doodle-farty solo when I encounter this chord?"

    So we lay CST down in the same grease as our doodle farty approach to improvisation, then declare for ourselves that CST is defined as doodle farting with scales.

    Not so.

    Sorry! Something went wrong!


    .
    Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 01-03-2020 at 10:16 PM.

  29. #228

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    You are right, but there may be a problem because that is what CSE gets through quite often. This is the widespread understanding that we see in the educational videos that teach jazz through cliches.

    I basically share the appreciation of ragman1 #post937923 and Tal_175 response below yours

    I speak of its use in tonal music, and the need to understand and hear the link between chords (harmony) and melody (improvisation), since very little improvisation is improvised from the melodic theme, like the ancient masters of classical jazz and Swing Era, and even Lester Young, Tal Farlow, Roy Haynes, etc.

    From a pedagogical point of view, it is a very poor understanding of bebop improvisation, since the musicians of this period did not think in these terms, which is easy to verify with the transcriptions. The exception might be the whole and diminished scales, but the chromaticisms and notes outside the recommended chord scale are far from falling into these dogmatic categories.

    So certainly, it is a mnemotechnical means, a shortcut or rather a detour for those who do not want to learn the fundamental logic of tonal harmony, with the degrees of chords, functional degrees in chord sequences (guide tones, voices leading). After all, it makes sense that when you think "dorian" for degree II in the tonality of C, you first think of note D, and what is the point if you want to highlight the third F or the seventh C, since they are indicated by the IIm7 chord?

    I say that concerning myself, the conception that I have of jazz, its history, and improvisation on the guitar with the so called "CST" does not suit me, it is only my experience, not a new dogma. I have made my own theory, and I attach great importance to the intervals and permutations of melodic fragments of 3 or 4 notes. I no longer work any straight scales up or down or in regular intervals of thirds, fourths, etc. This only leads to cliches, because we always tend to replay what we have worked. I try to really improvise, that is to say never play the same thing twice

    My intention is not to prevent anyone from using it, because by spending a while there you can achieve the same result, and as the Shadocks said in France: "Why look for a simple solution when you have a complicated solution?"
    But CST is harmony and theory based on jazz music, nothing more. And it is defined by its authors, not you, me, or internet crowd think.

    And its NOT an improv course. It came from the harmony department at Berklee. Not the improv department, not the arranging and composition department, not the instrumental departments, not the audio engineering department.........

    If you're in a scholarly mood, why not read it and find out what it is, as opposed to speculate as to what you think it is?


    HARMONY 1 2 3 4 by Barrie Nettles

  30. #229

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    I wrote that I knew CST, because I was also taught at the Paris School of Jazz in the 1980s (CIM) on principles inherited from Berklee. In more than 50 years of listening and writing about jazz history from all eras, and 40 years of jazz guitar, it seems to me that you can make your own experience, and share it without imposing it on anyone. That was just my modest testimony.

    I think I will stop here, because this topic presents all facets of the question, so that everyone whatever their "level" can make up their own mind.

    *

    J'ai écrit que je connaissais la CST, parce qu'on me l'a enseignée aussi à l'Ecole de jazz de Paris dans les années 1980 (CIM), sur des principes hérités de Berklee. En plus de 50 ans d'écoute et d'écriture sur l'histoire du jazz de toutes les époques, et 40 ans de guitare de jazz, il me semble qu'on peut se faire sa propre expérience, et en faire part sans l'imposer à personne. Ce n'était que mon modeste témoignage.

    Je pense m'arrêter ici, car ce topic présente toutes les facettes de la question, de sorte que chacun quel que soit son "niveau" puisse se faire sa propre idée.

    OK, that's all fine - but - you did fall into that trap of describing CST as doodle-fart scale based improv starting on the root of each chord. In other words, after 40 years of study you described CST in the exact same fashion as "the evolving metal guitarist". No biggie, but it can confuse those who are less well educated.

    Again - CST is a description of jazz harmony, and "copes with" complex chords and their use in both static tonal and highly modulating contexts. In other words, it helps one competently understand and create jazz music, not classical music. It doesn't tell an instrumentalist how to build phrases and motifs. Those topics are more fully addressed in composition, arranging and improv studies.

    Have a good one.
    Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 01-04-2020 at 01:59 PM.

  31. #230

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Again - CST is a description of jazz harmony, and "copes with" complex chords and their use in both static tonal and highly modulating contexts.
    I have the Berklee harmony book. I read several chapters of it very thoroughly. I still use it as my preferred harmony reference. Many of the chapters are dedicated to standard tonal harmony and the way it's commonly used in jazz tunes, both major and minor.

    May be it's splitting hair but based on the book I wouldn't say CST is a description of jazz harmony. I'd say the book uses CST to describe the jazz harmony. A lot of the jazz harmony in the book is stylistic variations on the centuries old tonal harmony as seen in Jazz compositions.

    CST is one theoretical device, it's not itself a theory. One can completely avoid CST still be able communicate the exact the content of the book.

    FYI I'm not anti-CST. Over the years I warmed up to CST as a practical theoretical tool. Probably because I think I get it better now and that book has a lot to do with it.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 01-04-2020 at 01:01 PM.

  32. #231

    User Info Menu

    The confusion is, people think of it as an aspect of jazz harmony. As if, they'll be missing out of some parts of the jazz harmony if they don't understand CST. In my view that's not true at least to the extend that Berklee's own jazz harmony book covers it. But again, I'll be happy to read an alternative view if it's worth paying attention to.

  33. #232

    User Info Menu

    Well I can't fully agee with your last two posts Tal.

    When I say that, I am considering; (1) Nettles' own explanation for what CST is and how it differs from traditional harmony and analysis. (the authors of The Berklee Book of Jazz Harmony touch very lightly on "CST", as so named), and (2) the definition of "harmony" itself, and the extent of its implications. Is harmony just chord symbols and progressions?

    It's probably most productive to avoid the term CST altogether and just study Jazz Harmony, Improvisation, Arranging, and Composition.

  34. #233

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    I found this article, which may be of interest to someone. It explains a bit like me the reasons why I do not use the so called CST, as I think it was not used either in the great historical currents of jazz, nor by the great masters in every era, except, of course, in music explicitly modal, including in and out play

    HOW THE CHORD-SCALE SYSTEM HAS FAILED YOU: 6 STEPS TO FREEDOM WITH SCALES AND MODES
    How Jazz Theory Has Failed You: Secrets to Scales and Modes • Jazz Advice

    In general, no major jazz current comes from a theoretical system, and no grandmaster has applied a system. Maybe we can make exceptions with Lenny Tristano Line Up, George Russel's Lydian Concept of Tonal Organization 1953? Ornette Coleman's harmolodics?...

    Jazz like all the arts, painting, poetry, theatre... evolves with strong personalities who upend norms and impose their styles against academicism, which are a caricature of the supposed rules that have served previously. Look how Impressionist painters were first banned in painting salons...

    Now, from the moment jazz was taught in schools, generations of musicians were trained with certain rules, and many make them standards, fall into academicism, this enemy of art. How many have become great musicians? and how many have had to break these rules to become great musicians? The answer is in the question.

    Jazz is not just about teachers' and students' problems, but in a forum of jazz guitarists, it is probably normal to find this first. I think it is very difficult to address these issues serenely in a forum of guitarists. It is a very special environment with strong ideologies. Perhaps I should not have intervened in that. I apologize for the inconvenience.
    I really think that you misunderstand CST my friend. And yeah, I get emails from those two guys too. So, what's the latest jazz improv "hack"? What are the latest 5 things that you need to do in the practice room, etc.?

    Sigh. Everybody has to sell something I guess.

    How about this? In one short paragraph - please define CST as you understand it, according to its authors.

  35. #234

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    According to a good principle of self-moderation, you will understand (perhaps) that I think it is best not to answer you. You can even deduce that you are right, it will be perfect for me.

    I wish the best to all those who use CST.
    It's not so much about me being "right" as it is seeking truth and accuracy on the topic, at least as far I understand it. Rather, I think that Nettles and his colleauges are "right" (to use your term), on their theory. They've taken all the slings and arrows about it, they might as well take some credit too.

    "First seek to understand, then to be understood".

    We internet guitarists really haven't done that with CST, have we?

  36. #235

    User Info Menu

    It's not an either or situation nor an ideology (theory). It's a broad stroke description, and it's subjective. It's looking at the forest rather than the trees. It simply describes a pool of notes that commonly fit over a particular chord quality. It's basics. I can't understand not wanting to be aware of it, nor arguing against being aware of it. It just is a fact of jazz being described. It's basics. It obviously is not giving advanced tips on melodic embellishment description or in other words about how to really make good melodies. It's just a crude road map to each chord's "pool of notes". Perhaps it's most useful on the piano where the scales are so much more logically visible and harmonically laid out in their piano black and white piano key geometry, far more so than on a guitar neck.

  37. #236

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rintincop
    It's not an either or situation nor an ideology (theory). It's a broad stroke description, and it's subjective. It's looking at the forest rather than the trees. It simply describes a pool of notes that commonly fit over a particular chord quality. It's basics. I can't understand not wanting to be aware of it, nor arguing against being aware of it. It just is a fact of jazz being described. It's basics. It obviously is not giving advanced tips on melodic embellishment description or in other words about how to really make good melodies. It's just a crude road map to each chord's "pool of notes". Perhaps it's most useful on the piano where the scales are so much more logically visible and harmonically laid out in their piano black and white piano key geometry, far more so than on a guitar neck.

    I think it's basics too, and while not super deep when you look at the scale to chord matching in isolation, it still meets the standard for a theory, based on a dictionary definition of the term.

    For example, there are options for scale choices in many cases, and there is a distinct approach beyond what one finds in traditional theory/harmony treatises.

    One could call it a rule set, an approach, a map, a decoder ring or whatever the heck else they want to call it. Or, they could call it a theory. Again - it has answers and options for answers - for different scenarios.

  38. #237

    User Info Menu

    Sorry if I will offend someone, but in general, people bashing CST either are trying to sell something, or can not play (or both).

  39. #238
    Matching scales to changes is the way I was taught and many others also. Unless you have incredible ears to actually play through changes without knowing scales it’s the best approach. And even if you had incredible ears you would probably end up with the same thing.
    To me the goal is to start with the theory then with time and experience incorporate your ears and extrapolate on the basics.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  40. #239

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo


    I've posted this vid a couple times in the last 10 years, so have others. Spend two hours with Doctor Burton and get the info from the horse's mouth.


  41. #240

    User Info Menu

    I approve ‘doodle farty’

    right I’m off again

  42. #241

    User Info Menu

    Chord Scale Theory Critique (Not Mine :-))-dcbb1ff1-b52a-431e-b5f3-89f02f1024fa-jpg

  43. #242

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    You could play some arpeggios to get started, yep. But after you ran out of chord tones only, what other notes would you choose to play, and how would you choose them?

    You start with substitutions. IMaj7, III-7 & VI-7 are Tonic chords, so they are interchangeable. Instead of having to think Ionian over the I, Phrygian over the III & Aeolian over the VI, simply see them as the same chord. Play a line over the IMaj7 based the III-7 or VI-7 arpeggios. Think of the Maj scale (Ionian) notes as your "white keys" and use chromatics as your "black keys" to connect the dots.

    The same rationale applies with the II-7 & IVMaj7. They are Subdominant chords. Instead of thinking Dorian & Lydian, simply see them as the same chord. V7 & VII-7b5 and Dominant chords. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    HOW DOES IT WORK?

    Key of C
    Tonic Chords: CMaj7 E-7 A-7 INTERCHANGEABLE because: CMaj7 C E G B (6/13, R, 3, 5 of the III chord. 3,5,7,9 of the VI chord) E-7 E G B D (3,5,7,9 of the I chord. 5,7,9,11 of the VI chord.) A-7 A C E G (6/13, R, 3, 5 of the I chord. 11, 6/13, R, 3 of the III chord.)

    Sub Dominant Chords: D-7 & FMaj7 D-7 D,F,A,C (6/13, R,3,5 of the IV chord) FMaj7 F A C E (3,5,7,9 of the II chord.)

    Dominant Chords: G7 & B-7b5 G7 G B D F (6/13 of the VII chord) B-7b5 B D F A (3,5,7,9 of the V chord)

    Later, most discover things like playing the IV over the I gives you the 11, 6/13, R, 3 of the I chord and so on. There's more to this subject.


    For some, thinking of everything as chords instead of "what mode goes with which chord" makes things easier to digest. Both systems have their merits and both are rooted in the same harmony when analyzed. Just my 2 cents.

  44. #243

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulieBoy
    You start with substitutions. IMaj7, III-7 & VI-7 are Tonic chords, so they are interchangeable. Instead of having to think Ionian over the I, Phrygian over the III & Aeolian over the VI, simply see them as the same chord. Play a line over the IMaj7 based the III-7 or VI-7 arpeggios. Think of the Maj scale (Ionian) notes as your "white keys" and use chromatics as your "black keys" to connect the dots.

    The same rationale applies with the II-7 & IVMaj7. They are Subdominant chords. Instead of thinking Dorian & Lydian, simply see them as the same chord. V7 & VII-7b5 and Dominant chords. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    HOW DOES IT WORK?

    Key of C
    Tonic Chords: CMaj7 E-7 A-7 INTERCHANGEABLE because: CMaj7 C E G B (6/13, R, 3, 5 of the III chord. 3,5,7,9 of the VI chord) E-7 E G B D (3,5,7,9 of the I chord. 5,7,9,11 of the VI chord.) A-7 A C E G (6/13, R, 3, 5 of the I chord. 11, 6/13, R, 3 of the III chord.)

    Sub Dominant Chords: D-7 & FMaj7 D-7 D,F,A,C (6/13, R,3,5 of the IV chord) FMaj7 F A C E (3,5,7,9 of the II chord.)

    Dominant Chords: G7 & B-7b5 G7 G B D F (6/13 of the VII chord) B-7b5 B D F A (3,5,7,9 of the V chord)

    Later, most discover things like playing the IV over the I gives you the 11, 6/13, R, 3 of the I chord and so on. There's more to this subject.


    For some, thinking of everything as chords instead of "what mode goes with which chord" makes things easier to digest. Both systems have their merits and both are rooted in the same harmony when analyzed. Just my 2 cents.
    Sure but that's pretty basic. Superimpositions and chord families. Dick Grove refered to those as "plural substitutes".

    But again - CST lists options, with rational for those options. (Although the rationale is not always spelled out expansively).

    So,
    What are all the chord scales that we can think of for secondary dominants?

    What chord scale(s) can you think of for V7 or V9? Dick Grove listed 3.

    What about a dominant 7 chord with a b5? Dick Grove listed 3.

    What about a dominant 13 chord with a #11? Dick Grove listed 2.

    What about V7(b9)? Is it 5 possibilities, or is it 4?

    What about?:
    V+7
    V+7 (b9)
    V+7 (b9, #11)
    V7 (#9, b13)

    And how many answers and explanations do traditional harmony texts provide for the above?

  45. #244

    User Info Menu

    Take the path of least resistance.

    If a V7 goes to I - available tensions b9, #9, b5, b13 - play the Jazz Minor scale up a half step. Scale = b9,#9,3,b5,b13,7,1,b9

    If a V7 doesn't resolve down a 5th (to I) - available tensions 9,#11, 13 - play the Jazz Minor scale from the 5th. Scale = 5,13,7,1,9,3,#11,5

    You'll end-up covering everything and it doesn't require much thought.

  46. #245

    User Info Menu

    I notice that you have confined yourself to diatonic scales. And that's just fine.

    So maybe John Mehegen didn't invent it after all. Maybe it wasn't Nettles, or Gary Burton, or Jerry Coker, or David Baker either. Maybe it's up to the individual.

    Congratulations on defining your Chord Scale Theory.

  47. #246

    User Info Menu

    Jazz minor scale chronologically? Meaning the origin of the scale? I'm confused lol.

  48. #247

    User Info Menu

    As in, when did jazz started using the jazz minor as a teaching/conceptual device especially with respect to using it dominant chords?

    Obviously the classical melodic minor descends differently. Bach uses the ascending form in descending runs a fair bit... But not like D melodic minor on G7, for instance. Usually he uses C minor...

    I've tracked it down to Lennie Tristano, late 40s. If anyone's interested. There's probably some Tristano school guys about somewhere who I'd like to hear from.... but John Klopotowski's book is worth a look if you want to know how these melodic minor scales were taught by Warne Marsh (hey it's a great book to look at anyway), which is presumably similar... It's similar to the modern formulation in some ways, but also a bit different in others.

    Basically, I reckon the modern jazz education paradigm is largely of Lennie's making, directly or indirectly. In the UK that might be even more so because the Jazz course at Leeds College of Music was I think part set up by Peter Ind (the wonderful Dave Cliff was one of the first alumni IIRC)... But in general he casts a long shadow everywhere, because his approach was quite 'scientific'/positivist (in the educational sense) and easy to quantify; so therefore useful for both creating a syllabus but equally as importantly justifying its academic value.

    My suspicion is CST actually owes more to him than it does to George Russell or Mehegan, but there's probably a PhD in that lol....