The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Posts 126 to 150 of 246
  1. #126

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77

    Anyway, here's Ethan Iverson getting his claws into the type of CST teaching.....

    Duke Ellington, Bill Evans, and One Night in New York City | The New Yorker
    Thanks for the link, Christian. Read the whole thing and much enjoyed it.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #127

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Even if you just take four basic elements - descending scale rules and ascending arpeggios, pivots, and diminished connections into target chords and combine with some real world bop rhythmic phrases, it's amazing how far you can go with just that.
    Lately, I've been focusing more on scat singing first and then putting the lines on the guitar.

    My thought is that the lines I sing are based on the harmony I can really hear well. In contrast, if I play without singing I can create more sophisticated harmony, but in the manner of a European promoter, not an American Master. More important, I tend to sing more interesting rhythms than my fingers find on their own.

    My quarrel with what I think CST might be is this. It makes it really easy to post a lengthy list of options for improvising over a single chord.

    Or worse, a list of things to try. I recall one post on another forum which suggested combining every possible triad pair against every possible bass note. The strategy is first to find the secret to eternal life, and then get to work.

    My experience is that I learn one sound at a time -- laboriously. Does anybody really benefit from a long list of chord/scale options?

    And then, if you consider what all great jazz players have in common, it isn't knowledge of theory. Some know the Berklee stuff inside out, and some know absolutely no theory. The majority know some theory, but it is absolutely not essential. Andres Varady is my favorite example.

    What great players do have in common is great time feel, melodic gifts and big ears.

    And, for a more specific criticism of CST. Some great players talk about targets within a tune. They hit their targets the way a long distance racer hits the checkpoints. In between they go anywhere they like, often rapid-fire licks that are harmonically pretty much random. The CST theorists always have a post-hoc explanation but they can't predict it.

    On the other hand, one player I know who talks about that, however, is fully conversant with the Berklee method, having graduated there Summa. So, his path to that point went through the theoretical considerations.

  4. #128

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Lately, I've been focusing more on scat singing first and then putting the lines on the guitar.

    My thought is that the lines I sing are based on the harmony I can really hear well. In contrast, if I play without singing I can create more sophisticated harmony, but in the manner of a European promoter, not an American Master. More important, I tend to sing more interesting rhythms than my fingers find on their own.
    I play in the manner of an American jazz club promoter.

    My quarrel with what I think CST might be is this. It makes it really easy to post a lengthy list of options for improvising over a single chord.

    Or worse, a list of things to try. I recall one post on another forum which suggested combining every possible triad pair against every possible bass note. The strategy is first to find the secret to eternal life, and then get to work.

    My experience is that I learn one sound at a time -- laboriously. Does anybody really benefit from a long list of chord/scale options?
    Hell no

    You know, the last thing a novice improvisor needs is 1,000,000 options. Actually no one needs that. That's why we get lessons and then transcribe, because by transcribing lines you like the sound of, you are letting your intuition decide what to check out.

    And then, if you consider what all great jazz players have in common, it isn't knowledge of theory. Some know the Berklee stuff inside out, and some know absolutely no theory. The majority know some theory, but it is absolutely not essential. Andres Varady is my favorite example.

    What great players do have in common is great time feel, melodic gifts and big ears.
    You get them big ears by listening to so much music that your ears get stretched HUGE with all the notes.

    And, for a more specific criticism of CST. Some great players talk about targets within a tune. They hit their targets the way a long distance racer hits the checkpoints. In between they go anywhere they like, often rapid-fire licks that are harmonically pretty much random. The CST theorists always have a post-hoc explanation but they can't predict it.
    Yupsies.

    On the other hand, one player I know who talks about that, however, is fully conversant with the Berklee method, having graduated there Summa. So, his path to that point went through the theoretical considerations.
    Hey some of my best friends are Berklee grads! 'Play them triad pairs college boy!'*

    We. Don't. Talk. About. Theory.

    Most Berklee grads live in Scotland though, apparently. So I'll avoid trying to build a jazz career there.

    *BTW is it just me or do triad pairs only sound really good on Tenor sax?

  5. #129

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Even if you just take four basic elements - descending scale rules and ascending arpeggios, pivots, and diminished connections into target chords and combine with some real world bop rhythmic phrases, it's amazing how far you can go with just that.
    Lot of mileage can be made with that. And another thing which Frank Vignola often mentions. It's simple (sounds like it would be simple, anyway), and I think that puts off some guitarists who expect things to be harder than they sometimes are. It's this: take the melody of a tune---a melodic phrase---and play the same phrase but with different notes. (Keep the rhythm, change the pitches.)

  6. #130

    User Info Menu

    So, here is what I think it makes sense to work on.

    Great time feel. You can't produce it until you know what you are doing. You have to know the tune inside-out, be able to execute your ideas and be able to relax. The rest of the band has be good enough so that it's possible for you to have good time feel. I'm not sure about getting it from practice with a metronome or drum machine. I've seen that go in different directions.

    Melodic gifts. This is attainable, according to some theories, by various acts of penance and/or sacrifice.

    Big ears. This is one you can really work on. Ear training is slow, frustrating and potentially effective. I very much wish I had been exposed to it early in my musical life, but, alas, I'd never heard of it until much later. I still haven't taken a course, but I got something out of practicing with Ear Master. I got more out of practicing with IRealPro. Pick a tune, set for 13 repeats, change key every chorus by a 4th and comp along, maybe just with the bass and drums audible. Then, turn the piano up and do it again, soloing.

    Frustrating at first, but, eventually, you start to improve. You can tell when your fingers find the right chord before your brain seems to.

    Then, to expand your harmonic capability, go one sound at a time with plenty of singing of the lines. I'd suggest 7#11, Alt, and maj7#11 as the first three past major, minor and 7th. Once you can sing those, take the rest of the year off.

  7. #131

    User Info Menu

    Good post.

  8. #132

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Sorry, but define 'CST'. What exactly do you mean by that? Any links or backup for it?

    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.
    Professor Hal Crook-

    The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.

    Berklee Today | Berklee College of Music

  9. #133

    User Info Menu

    Yeah that sums up what folks have been saying.

    But it doesn't imply or state explicitly that the "bad" approach was taught at any American college, Berklee or other. It seems to be talking about high schoolers or other self taught players.

    This thread started by trashing John Mehegan and other collegiate scholars and programs. But where's the evidence that Julliard, Berklee, UNT, etc. taught improvisation as a list of scales? Answer: Nowhere.

    Well guess what? As circumstance would have it, I am in possession of The Berklee Correspondence Course, copyright 1971/1972. It was a predecessor to the Berklee Online school that they have now. It was a boiled down version of what was taught on campus, not too dissimilar to the current online school. It has lessons/booklets that cover theory, harmony, arranging, and yes, improvisation.

    And? Those who might attempt to advance a narrative that Berklee taught a bunch of scales as an approach to improvisation would be sorely disappointed.

    Game over.

  10. #134

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Yeah that sums up what folks have been saying.

    But it doesn't imply or state explicitly that the "bad" approach was taught at any American college, Berklee or other. It seems to be talking about high schoolers or other self taught players.

    This thread started by trashing John Mehegan and other collegiate scholars and programs. But where's the evidence that Julliard, Berklee, UNT, etc. taught improvisation as a list of scales? Answer: Nowhere.

    Well guess what? As circumstance would have it, I am in possession of The Berklee Correspondence Course, copyright 1971/1972. It was a predecessor to the Berklee Online school that they have now. It was a boiled down version of what was taught on campus, not too dissimilar to the current online school. It has lessons/booklets that cover theory, harmony, arranging, and yes, improvisation.

    And? Those who might attempt to advance a narrative that Berklee taught a bunch of scales as an approach to improvisation would be sorely disappointed.

    Game over.
    And the relevance of this post is - what exactly?

  11. #135

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Professor Hal Crook-

    The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.

    Berklee Today | Berklee College of Music
    So Barry Harris is chord scale then

  12. #136

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Professor Hal Crook-

    The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.

    Berklee Today | Berklee College of Music
    It occurred to me that I wasn't sure of the exact definition of "diatonic". Turns out there's more than one.

    So, in this case, what you're saying, I think, is that CST is based on the idea that, if the tones of a chord are contained within a scale, that scale can be used as a source to derive melody.

    What I read on here extends that, perhaps. A single chord can be contained within multiple scales. but not every one will work equally well in a given situation.

    OTOH:

    Based on reading this forum, I'm pretty sure that there's a CST type explanation for the use of any note in the chromatic scale over any chord. I thinking of that thread that had a modal interchange (or something) explanation of an F# against a G7.

    I commented at the time that a theory which allows for any note at all isn't really useful. It seems like, after somebody plays something that sounds good, somebody else "explains" it. But, they can't use the theory to predict what's going to sound good. And, if they try, they get disparaged as playing like European promoters.

    So, like a lot of things, you start out trying to organize something and you have to take care that the organizational structure applied doesn't get out of hand.

    RANT MODE OFF

  13. #137

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    It seems to me that the hundreds of examples from recordings by significant artists prove some of his points.

    But, I'll keep an open mind. Is there a book with a contrasting approach that contains this type of evidence?

    In the article you quoted, the author seems to be complaining that amateur musicians can sound like Bill Evans. So? Does he think that giving them better books/lessons will make them sound like an American Master?
    I'm trying to figure out what's so bad about amateur pianists sounding like Bill Evans. God, I wish every pianist I ever had to play with could sound like Bill Evans. Instead they sounded like Liberace or maybe Oscar Peterson drunk and deranged.

  14. #138

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Yep, a lot of truth in that but not absolute truth. This falls into the either/or argument that the jazz guitar forumites often engage in.

    Playing some fancy blues is one thing, but how did one learn to play the virtuoso repertoire of Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, etc. before recordings existed? Just went and listened to their friendly neighborhood virtuoso every day?
    You ask the musicians questions, listened to their musical answers in sounds, absorbed their genius in your own playing. It's a musical apprenticeship.

  15. #139

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Professor Hal Crook-

    The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.

    Berklee Today | Berklee College of Music
    I already said that. It was about the first thing I said (#38). And I didn't copy it from any professor!

    'CST stands for Chord-Scale Theory. As you say, it's basically about what can be played over what.

    In its simplest form it starts with the fact that chords are built from scales. So, stacking the notes of C major in 3rds and making 4-note chords, the chords of C major are: CM7, Dm7, Em7, FM7, G7, Am7, and Bm7b5.

    Therefore, because those chords have been built from the C major scale, the C major scale can be used to play over them.'

    Chord Scale Theory Critique (Not Mine :-))

  16. #140

    User Info Menu

    This is getting stupid. Well, actually it got stupid some time ago...

  17. #141

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar

    RANT MODE OFF
    Oh, that's a shame. There's something to be said for posting in anger :-)

  18. #142

    User Info Menu

    See, I think we ought to distinguish between what is obviously musical sense at the most basic level and what is 'CST'. Realising that chords can be improvised with their parent scale is hardly rocket science. If it's in G, play G. I mean, you're not going to play in Eb if it's in G.

    I wouldn't call that a theory. It's no more a theory than saying if you want a red door use red paint. So I don't know why basic and obvious knowledge has been called a theory, it's nonsense. If you want an omelette, use eggs not beans.

    So, seeing that this has gone on and on, that's why I'm asking whether CST - in fact any theory at all - is relevant. There's just music. It works or it doesn't. If it sounds good, that's fine. And if people want to pass on the knowledge of 'what sounds fine' that's great - but why call it a theory?

    Theories are invented, facts are not.

  19. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    See, I think we ought to distinguish between what is obviously musical sense at the most basic level and what is 'CST'. Realising that chords can be improvised with their parent scale is hardly rocket science. If it's in G, play G. I mean, you're not going to play in Eb if it's in G.

    I wouldn't call that a theory. It's no more a theory than saying if you want a red door use red paint. So I don't know why basic and obvious knowledge has been called a theory, it's nonsense. If you want an omelette, use eggs not beans.

    So, seeing that this has gone on and on, that's why I'm asking whether CST - in fact any theory at all - is relevant. There's just music. It works or it doesn't. If it sounds good, that's fine. And if people want to pass on the knowledge of 'what sounds fine' that's great - but why call it a theory?

    Theories are invented, facts are not.
    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.

  20. #144

    User Info Menu

    Based on reading this forum, I'm pretty sure that there's a CST type explanation for the use of any note in the chromatic scale over any chord. I thinking of that thread that had a modal interchange (or something) explanation of an F# against a G7.
    There may be other explanations but here's one that is pretty simple.

    Imagine a slow blues in G. It is hardly an esoteric sound to hear F#7 > G7 or Ab7 > G7 as passing chords.
    Same is true for a passing D7 chord in a G7 context. These chords can be steered closer to the key via
    altered extensions. It is my belief that whatever happens with chords successfully will have melodic equivalents.

    I don't know if this is a "CST type explanation for the use of any note in the chromatic scale over any chord"
    or not. I never studied that, but I am aware of chords and extensions derived from various scales + other scales
    functioning against dominant chords despite lacking a ma3. What I try to take away from this is not having a
    formula of using this scale against this chord, but increased awareness of intervals and interval combinations
    in various harmonic context. This is not an be all method, just a bunch of knowledge that has helped more
    than it has hurt.


  21. #145
    There's also a degree to which you can organize chromatic approach tones based on different scales. There are excepted approaches for chromatics on major for example. See the things I learned from Barry Harris video that Chris made on his channel re chromatic scale rules.

    Basically, on one level (embellishment level, in reg thinking?), chromatic approaches are determined by whether there is a whole step up or a neighbor or half step above as the upper neighbor. Maybe coming down, it's thought of the other way. I don't remember.

    I had kind of reverse engineered these from my old Jimmy Amadie book, basically trying to reconcile with some of what Reg had to say with these things. Anyway, when I saw Chris's video on the Barry Harris chromatic scale rules, I immediately recognized that they were exactly the same.

    So, if you're talking about half steps and whole steps, you can apply the same "rules" to any scale. You can chromatically approach Lydian dominant. I always feel like people look at it the other way , as if the #4 IS the chromatic, but it's actually pretty vanilla if you're playing over II7or or VII7 etc. Lydian dominant is the base reference, the vanilla, in that context.

    You can play anything, even altered "chromatically".

    Most of us kind of "mentally" organize all chromatics based on major anyway. It's kind of the same thing.

  22. #146

    User Info Menu

    If it's in G, play G. I mean, you're not going to play in Eb if it's in G.
    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.

  23. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    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.
    Nice. Harmonic rhythm.

    This is one of my favorite things about studying jazz . Harmony is kind of a tessellation in jazz. Basically anything which works on macro harmonic level can work as a weak side sub with different harmonic rhythm etc...

    Thanks for this.

  24. #148

    User Info Menu

    If you have talent, the more experienced players take you under their wing and nurture you. If you don't have talent you read books............

  25. #149

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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!

  26. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    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.