-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
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.
-
01-03-2020 08:47 PM
-
Originally Posted by Patlotch
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
-
Originally Posted by Patlotch
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.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by Patlotch
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.
-
Originally Posted by Patlotch
"First seek to understand, then to be understood".
We internet guitarists really haven't done that with CST, have we?
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
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.
-
Sorry if I will offend someone, but in general, people bashing CST either are trying to sell something, or can not play (or both).
-
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
-
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.
-
I approve ‘doodle farty’
right I’m off again
-
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
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.
-
Originally Posted by PaulieBoy
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Jazz minor scale chronologically? Meaning the origin of the scale? I'm confused lol.
-
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....
16" 1920s/30s L5
Yesterday, 08:44 PM in For Sale