The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Posts 176 to 200 of 246
  1. #176

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell
    Why would I ever bear that in mind? To quote Brother Dave Gardner, "I may not always be right, but by god I ain't never wrong!"
    Ol' Brother Dave! I heard him as a kid. Often quoted by my uncles and other elders. "Rejoice, dear hearts!"

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #177

    User Info Menu

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

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

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

    At least the Birkett guy wrote a doctoral thesis.

    OTOH you're an internet dude with no context.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So how many times must it be said?

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

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

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

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

    Thanks for the discussion.

  4. #178

    User Info Menu

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

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

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

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

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

  5. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    CST is Functional Harmony expanded with Modal applications... Possible relationships between Chords and Scales with Reference to a Tonal center or Target.
    Yeah. I think that's the most common criticism I read on the forum: "Why do you need CST for basic functional harmony? Why do you need CST for a simple II-V-I?" etc.

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

  6. #180

    User Info Menu


  7. #181

    User Info Menu

    Hey let’s talk about politics!

  8. #182

    User Info Menu

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

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

    So how many times must it be said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. #183

    User Info Menu

    I have a theory about all this but I'm keeping it to myself for now.
    Attached Images Attached Images Chord Scale Theory Critique (Not Mine :-))-jurassic-park-cast-jpg 

  10. #184

    User Info Menu

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

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

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

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

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

    Possible Modal Functional Harmony
    Reg,

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

  11. #185

    User Info Menu

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

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

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

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

  12. #186

    User Info Menu

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

  13. #187

    User Info Menu

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

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

  14. #188

    User Info Menu

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

  15. #189

    User Info Menu

    rpjazzguitar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

  16. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    Matt,

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

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

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



    Reg,

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

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

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

    All the best.

  17. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Watching Gary Burton's lecture (posted recently on a similar thread) was extremely illuminating for me. It allowed me to gain some first hand insight into "an insider's" view of CST.
    After watching the video I am under the impression that:
    1- CST is not some alternative musical paradigm that informs every note choice of a (CST) player.
    2- CST is not the key to understanding some alternative harmonic universe that's completely novel and un-interpretable by the conventional tonal harmony devices.

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

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

  18. #192

    User Info Menu

    Matt,

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

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

  19. #193

    User Info Menu

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

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

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

    All the best.
    Functional harmony was never purely diatonic.

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

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

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

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

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

  20. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Functional harmony was never purely diatonic.

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

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

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

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

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

  21. #195

    User Info Menu

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

    I think it's the single most helpful improvisation framework method I've ever looked at.
    Being thick headed as I am I can only interpret this as meaning to improvise around the melody.

  22. #196

    User Info Menu

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

  23. #197

    User Info Menu

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

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

  24. #198

    User Info Menu

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

    the latter

  25. #199

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    What's the theory word for not-modal harmony.
    regular?

  26. #200

    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.