-
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
03-05-2019 09:51 PM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Just curious, did you ever read the book "The 7 habits of highly effective people"? A trendy business book in the 90s. Besides all the hype there was one good one in there - Habit #5. "Seek first to understand, then to be understood".
So because you linked this to jazz education I'll offer a few parting questions/comments about the thread.
1. Do you have any historical references of the term "CST" used by either a jazz master or prominent jazz educator, prior to Nettles and Graf's text in 1997 - and - are they from a source NOT associated with, educated by, or informed by the Berklee College of Music? If so, please provide them.
2. Do you have any references that show any of the major American jazz educators from UNT, Berklee, or for that matter Jerry Coker, David Baker, et al who stated that "practicing and playing scales is your key to jazz improvisation capability"? And did those same authors write texts and training materials devoid of arpeggios, chromatics, approach notes, etc? If so please provide them.
3. This urban myth that any major university jazz educator has taught "only scales for jazz improv" - and called it CST, is just that, a myth, a canard. Even modal music maestro John McLaughlin includes arpeggios and endless melodic patterns or cells (he calls them variations, which is a good name too) in his "This is The Way I Do It" jazz guitar improvisation course.
-
My impression is that an approach based on a specific set of scale choices against a particular chord in a particular situation, gets talked about a lot in on-line forums. The choices and situations discussed range from the simple to the arcane, allowing a lot of material to be subsumed therein.
Here's a story about one of the best solos I ever played.
I'm reading an arrangement of Desafinado and I get the first solo. I play my usual stuff on the written changes, but I sound amazingly hip. Like a much different, and more advanced, player.
Turns out, my chart has different harmony from the others due to a mistake.
So, I'm playing on a nice reharm of the tune without realizing it. My usual vanilla stuff but on a very different set of chords.
Will CST predict/analyze what happened? I'm guessing that many will say, sure.
But, another approach would be to simply write (mentally?) a different set of changes and then play chord tones and some extensions on the hipper chords. I guess figuring the best extensions might be considered CST.
Is CST helpful in writing the hipper changes? Not to the extent that I know anything about CST. Others may differ. I'm quite confident that, afterward, CST would permit an "explanation" of why it worked.
I have no complaint with CST. I do think that it's seductive. It's easy to write out a long list of combinatorics that could take years to master. I think it's best to focus on one sound at a time so, CST, but in a slow drip.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
It would seem silly if someone came on board and kept on about how stifling it must be to think "in major". Like english grammar somehow slows down speech or writing. It's simply not the case.
There's also this thing of constant "you can just" statements. You can just play chord X. You don't have to think of the mode. Ok. Fine. You don't "have to" think major to play chords in major either, but is it really a hindrance, once you know it?Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
Personally, I think it's confusing to talk about "CST" as being the same thing as the "Current misunderstandings of CST", "The unintended consequences of Aebersold's scale list", "Levine's impact on scale based improvisation" etc etc. We're lumping in great players and teachers who don't just teach scales-up-and-down or formulaic whatevers in with all of these broader philosophical problems/issues. Levine's book is legitimately contentious , but Aebersold, Gary Burton, Barry Harris. They're not simply talking scales-up-and-down exclusively.
I understand the above issues are real, but calling them all "CST" is confusing to the conversation and provokes needless argument.
-
When discussions start doing this kind of thing there's usually a good reason for it and it's usually the same one. Nobody knows what they're talking about. Usually because they're not talking about the same thing.
It's like arguing about God. No one's sure what it is exactly so the whole thing is ideas, opinions, theories, and a lot of clamour about nothing. And the problem with me writing this is that it'll be taken as just another opinion. But it's not.
Can anyone find me a definite definition of 'Chord Scale Theory'? I've looked at the Oxford Dictionary of Music and there's nothing. That phrase doesn't exist.
So what exactly is CST? Who invented it? What does it actually say? Why is there any argumentation about it at all? Why aren't there any real references to it online (except that Wiki page)?
We should ALL answer this question properly before continuing. Because I can't.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Let's start with this:
https://www.amazon.com/Chord-Scale-T.../dp/389221056X
-
One big thing I've found out when it comes to learning jazz, is to pretty much ignore anything and everything guitarists have to say.
As far as CST, I never got the idea that it was intended to be used on music before post-bop. And then only as reference material, not a method. For modal, or non-functional harmony, some folks might mistake it as a method because it becomes more usable information.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
What I'm going to do is ask Berklee. Someone there will know. Hopefully.
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
I don't mean to pressurise anyone but we all keep saying 'CST' but no one seems to know exactly what it is, who started it, or anything else. The Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries of Music have never heard of it.
-
Just in terms of how the musicians I encounter talk about this stuff ...
For the most part, nobody talks about theory. But, now and then, somebody might stumble over a chord change and ask for help. Typically, several people will respond, and just about every time it will be with a scale name. So, those responders seem familiar with the underlying idea of CST.
But, some of the best soloists don't necessarily respond. One of them wrote a book -- and his book is of "jazz" lines with the tensions on the chords in a different color ink. A whole book of them -- and it's fun to play from it. When he solos I don't hear scales or scale-derived patterns as much as I do when some of the other guys solo. There are, of course, exceptions.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
I’m talking about the mass market, although I am interested I some of the questions you posted from the point of view of history. It would mean greater access to jazz periodicals etc than I currently have and not sure how relevant it is to my studies atm. Might become so though...
Let me rephrase the question - is Mark Levine’s Jazz Theory Book in your educated opinion a good reflection of CST practice applied to jazz?
Because that’s sort of thing I’m dealing with.
I gig with Jazz college graduates but I’m not teaching them :-) as far as undergrads at good jazz colleges go, they can already play.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Originally Posted by ragman1
"CST is a school of thought where harmony is converted to scales. The philosophy and general objective is mostly to figure out and play lines over a sequence of harmonies."
In this thread we talk about the pros and cons of this mindset, it's practical application as well as implications for the learning process.
i, There are strong indicators for improvisation as the main driving force (but there are other applications as well).
ii, The fact that chords have associated scales is fundamental music theory not invented in the CST framework. It has been suggested that the contribution of CST in music theory could be seen as a quick guide to find out "what can be played over what".
iii, Criticism is mainly directed towards that mindset; to play something over something else, especially when the effort is focused on finding the right scales rather than the execution of the lines i.e phrasing, rhythm, timing and general melodic feel. It's understood that this may not be the fault of the theory, but rather it's common application.
***
Like I said in my first post here; If I was a trumpet player I would swear by CST. I would collect patterns derived from scales, so that I could blow harmonies. The patterns would be my chords. And if I was teaching trumpet players, I would introduce them to CST at an early stage, as an introduction to Harmony. I would have them play the changes from a chord chart, just like a guitar player would strum chords. My teaching goal would be to make my trumpet students aware of the sounds of different harmonies and to develop a melodic sense (skills that also are useful when improvising). At a later stage, when I introduce them to improvisation, I would say; Try not to use the same old patterns. Seek variations on the melody.
Assume a guitar player that can play scales (really fast), but can't play chords. -Is he a true lead guitarist or did he miss something in school?
-
The other thing I find a bit annoying about CST Analysis is this sort of thing (re Moment's Notice, Coltrane)
"Something that everyone misses in Analysing this tune is in the going to the Dbmaj7 chord. Even in the melody it drops on the #11 in a very heavy harmonic pulse. And when you improvise in a Db Lydian you will notice(even though it’s in a moments notice har har) that it works better with all the chords. Which actually suggests that the Ebm7 Ab7 to Dbmaj7 is actually a II V for a fourth. Which means the one is Ab. So dear Coltrane made a cool transition to Ab without even using it. I think it’s pretty clever of him.?"
From a post on a video I did.
Now I don't mean to be horrible - it's a cool post and certainly better than "sort out your audio" or "you suck lol", and certainly not wrong, but analysing everything with respect to the roots of chords misses something about the very nature of the tune. This was my reply:
"Well TBH, my hunch is Coltrane thought of the melody which is entirely diatonic to the notes of Eb major until it hits that hip modulation to Gb, before he put the chords to it. That's why it sounds so melodic and nice, and then you try to play it and go 'oh.' So it so happens that there's a G on that Dbmaj7, which is a diatonic passing tone in the key of Eb major. Modern jazz theory is obsessed with tracking extensions on every single chord, of course, so we see that note and write Dbmaj7(#11) like good little jazz dweebs.
Another good example from the 1920's might be the note F# on the chord C7 in Limehouse Blues (Coltrane plays a mega version of that BTW, in a different key). OMG It's Lydian Dominant! Well maybe not....
We aren't necessarily that interested in preserving the extensions suggested by the melody in bop improvisation. We tend to improvise over the basic chord qualities.For instance, when Charlie Parker plays on a Bb7#11 chord in Cherokee - because the melody note is an E and the chord is Bb - he isn't terribly interested in the #11. He'd be as likely to play Eb (11).The next step would be to check out the solos on the tune (which I haven't actually done) and see if Trane and the other players use the lydian tonality on that chord.But it's certainly an option.
I tend not to use #11's on functional major chords in general, and MN is a highly functional tune."
------
You want my definition of CST?
No?
Well you are getting it anyway
The fetishisation of chord symbols.Last edited by christianm77; 03-06-2019 at 09:47 AM.
-
The fetishisation of chord symbols.
And for those incorporating approach chords or superimposing alternate changes, working overtime.
Many of us take a chart too literal.
You raise one other far too underutilized idea, that is checking out the melody on it's own.
-
What I'm asking is not about peoples' guesses but actually where it all came from and why it generates such arguments - sorry, intense discussion.
I've sent out some emails and got a couple of replies as well as the replies here.
I don't think anybody 'invented it' in that sense. I suspect some, or a few, teachers jotted down the most usual scales to use over certain chords as a teaching tool. Maybe they made it into a chart and stuck it on the wall. .
Then, because it was well organised and seemed pretty good, and because it stopped learners being completely lost, it became the 'Bible' of improvisation.
This wasn't the fault of the chart, this was students wanting a fail-safe method to follow (especially in a school) so they looked good and kept them out of trouble. And gradually, like any other comfortable, safe idea, it became a sin to deviate.
But, like any system, it had its limitations. When people grew more experienced they began to think for themselves and deviate. So they became the heretics, the apostates.
I mean, this is what all this is about, isn't it? The 'One True Way' versus 'The Revolutionary Improvisation Brigade'. Apart from the odd sane voice of reason, that is.
Moral: Come to no conclusions, take no immovable stances, strike no fundamentalist attitudes, do what you want. You're not at school now.
-
Originally Posted by bako
You know I always loved Moments Notice as a tune. That’s before I learned how hard it is to play! I think the same can be said of many of Wayne’s compositions. You can hang all sorts of chords off a strong melody, and often those melodies are themselves very simple or folkish.
Of course playing on Wayne’s changes is where modal thinking comes into its own.... but I need to explore this era of music more because this is the era that was formative for cst.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I don't think there is CST. I don't think there ever was CST. Someone invented it.
Like Father Christmas
-
Originally Posted by JCat
Well, no.
CST is a collegiate study of Theory/Harmony. It's authors taught in the Harmony department.
Jazz Improvisation is a different set of classes, with different materials. But , like all Improvisation, Arranging, and Composition classes - it relies on foundations described in Theory and Harmony.
CST does not "tell you what to play" any more than any other Harmony and Theory book tells you what to improvise, arrange/orchestrate, or write/compose. All of that is up to the individual, who is strongly advised to study those other topics in depth.
There is theory and there is application. CST is theory, not application.
-
Regarding what rag is talking about/ asking about, I think that's one of the major problems with CST which is very analogous to CAGED. They are both somewhat DUBIOUS in origin and have been picked up by a wide variety of people who use them in very broad and different ways. CAGED is not one codified thing. It certainly isn't a "method".
In the same way, CST is very different from the teaching of Barry Harris , William Leavitt or any other teacher on any subject. In all of those cases, there is an originator who is kind of the constant reference and one definitive source. It's very problematic that Lavine has become more or less the standard for CST, because he's a few degrees removed from the apparent originators of the idea (who were more about arranging etc.?)... and because his presentation is so obviously contentious among players and teachers.
Edit: posted without reading the last several posts...
-
Anyway hopefully we can agree (mostly) on the statement that CST is introduced in the wrong way and far too early for many students.
It is (despite my misgivings) an essential area of study for any musician wishing to understand post-modal jazz, because that's how many of those musicians themselves were trained. One of my fellow musicians pointed out that despite all my misgivings about CST I certainly knew all the modes and how to use them.
However - here's something else quite interesting from the paper:
'Kernfeld’s (1981) analysis of the three horn players in Miles Davis’ celebrated 1958 sextet investigates not only each player’s individual formulaic vocabulary but also their collective approach to formulaic interplay. Through this approach, Kernfeld arrives at a clearer understanding of "Modal" improvising, a technique largely pioneered and disseminated by Davis’ sextet." He concludes that our present methods of teaching "Modal Jazz", where melodic improvisation is conceived as a series of overlapping modes or scales, is essentially flawed and that Davis’ practice of chord "vamping" better accounts for the spacious music of this style. In the light of these findings, educators may well have to rethink the "classic" categorisation of modes (similar to those used by Medieval composers) to which Davis’ sextet rarely literally adhered.'
The source cited is Kernfeld, B. (1981). Adderley, Coltrane and Davis at the Twilight of Bebop: The Search for Melodic Coherence (Volumes I and II). Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
I have to say from my limited work on Kind of Blue etc, this seems to be the case.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Rick Beato's take on it is worth watching IMO, obviously I agree with him, but he is kind of a CST guy when it comes to analysis, so it's cool to hear him say it and critique that ****ing stupid jazz edu meme about 'giving away the dominant sound on ii-7'
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale