CST and making it harder to sound like - e.g. - Hank Mobley

[Groyniad]

for me - I think - its all very close to wanting to learn how to whistle

[Groyniad]

Exactly. I decided when first working over Giant Steps years ago that it might be instructive to take the most common figures/cells from Coltrane's solo and compose a series of etudes based solely on that material. I suppose I was trying to burrow back to how Coltrane himself may have approached the tune in his own practise. It was a useful exercise and highlighted the 'boilerplate bop techniques' that JC employed even more clearly.

Attachment 87631Attachment 87632Attachment 87633

I think - if you look at any of this from a rhythmical perspective - weeping would be in order

[Irishmuso]

if there is a substantial constituency in the jazz-learning world who want to sound like Chet Baker or Hank Mobley but who are approaching jazz through CST, then there are lots of musicians being badly hampered by the framework they are using to understand the music - and that’s rotten (because it’s a huge challenge without such confusions).

I agree.

[Irishmuso]

Giant Steps is a 16 bar melodic etude created to explore tri-tonic cyclic movements,
driven by Coltrane's theoretical and spiritual pursuits. It was an idea that he continued to evolve. A Love Supreme is a 4 movement suite and a departure from common GASB forms, progressions and sensibilities.

Should quotations be in parentheses and a citation given on this forum?

[Irishmuso]

Carol Kaye wrote 'Remember to grasp the idea of Jazz improv soloing, it's not like building a ship with each piece going perfectly into the puzzle - jazz is fluid, constantly changing and moving chords around per taste, and depending on what others play also, total communication within the group.'


She does provide a series of musical phrases which I've never found very inspiring, but she did prompt me to realise that CST was not how jazz was played in the pre-modal era. Of course if I feel like playing a bit of fusion, then CST is a good painting-by-numbers approach. It's just that I would like not to rely upon keeping pre-ordained colours within pre-ordained boundaries (while still hearing Jimmy Raney complain 'but you can't play...')

[PMB]

I think - if you look at any of this from a rhythmical perspective - weeping would be in order

I see your point, RingoDay but one could say the same about the basic outlines Barry Harris taught in his classes. For instance, once even-length scale fragments or figures like those illustrated here were in place, he'd suggest clipping off the beginning/end to add rhythmic interest.

It's simply a starting point in reconnecting cells, a continuous eighth-note study of the kind promulgated by Joe Pass and many others. Interestingly, some years after writing these out, I came across a similar set of studies composed by Pat Martino over Giant Steps. Just one way into the matrix. If nothing else, I remember that it helped me internalise the changes more easily by initially restricting the content in this manner.

[PMB]

Incidentally, there's some video of Barry Harris in a class where he starts out by dissing Giant Steps but gets progressively fascinated by it as the clip progresses and he demonstrates possible ways through the tune.

[Donplaysguitar]

Yeah, all of this can be true and also what I said can be true as well. I feel you are discussing a point that I am not making or something? Maybe you’re just riffing.

Besides which there’s an awful lot of bop vocab on those modal and fusion records….

Chord scales - or any material you might use as an improviser - should be liberating, not box people into a narrow set of permitted ‘good sounding’ notes.

My experience has shown it’s necessary to be able to play already to make good use of them. You need a good ear for jazz, at least. Some have that early on; others need to develop it.

So if you can’t make your playing sound good, it’s not the fault of chord scales. On the other hand neither will chord scales make you sound good. I can tell you for a fact that not everyone realises this. I’m talking mostly about players who are stuck with their playing, or just starting out.

I daresay Berklee students will be just fine without me lol.

Also, I don’t think people always realise Barry Harris was teaching as far back as the 1950s. He was young; still at school.

I am probably making a different point, yes.

CST is not an improv course, arranging course, or composition course. It is also not a style of music, like post bop or fusion.

The term is associated with harmony/theory pedagogy at Berklee in past decades.

It was preceded, surrounded, and followed by numerous superficial improv “methods”, but those books and teaching weren’t called CST.

A shallow and inadequate improv course of study that doesn’t go much beyond arpeggios and scales is not CST, it’s just shallow and inadequate improv study.

[Groyniad]

I really don't doubt that it is 'fascinating' (Giant Steps etc.) - I'm just not much drawn to music as something interesting or fascinating in the way a complex line of thought might be fascinating.

I'm 'fascinated' by Stardust - or a Parker ballad - but it's not the same sense of 'fascination'

(it's the kind mentioned in the song: 'but this time it isn't fascination, or a dream that will fade and fall apart - this time it's love .....' )

not fascination as in 'Einstein's theory fascinated me from the start....'

[Clint 55]

You're missing the point that both OP and Christian are making. That theory is great if you can play as it allows you to neatly order the stuff you're doing into nice little boxes and make it more accessable and easier to communicate to others. Might even inspire you to see things in a different way.

The thing is is you dive into theory too soon in order to learn how to play then you're going to get fettered. Learning grammar is not going to teach you how to speak. Never could and never will.


But hey ignore all I said about Yngwie's massive amount of transcription at a very young age and attack me personally instead ... while you're at it .. maybe you should hit us with this again?

You are out of control. An average beginner isn't going to progress any more starting from scratch listening to records than he will looking at scales and trying to build music. However, with teaching or if they happen to stumble upon the right method, both theory and musicianship in parallel will yield the best results. The 2 aren't inversely proportional like you're trying to prove. If a beginner learns a scale, then all his creativity will not be obliterated. It's not that tough of a concept. Here is a Wynton Kelly line, this is how it sounds. It's made up of these components. Now you make up something like that. How is that counterproductive? I'm starting the thread and it's your fault.

[Clint 55]

I think - if you look at any of this from a rhythmical perspective - weeping would be in order

Looks like classical lol. A lot of classical is like that.

[Christian Miller]

Incidentally, there's some video of Barry Harris in a class where he starts out by dissing Giant Steps but gets progressively fascinated by it as the clip progresses and he demonstrates possible ways through the tune.

I reckon it was one of his classic routines; I experienced it live haha

But the thing about playing a scale through GS; good thing to practice

[Christian Miller]

You are out of control. An average beginner isn't going to progress any more starting from scratch listening to records than he will looking at scales and trying to build music. However, with teaching or if they happen to stumble upon the right method, both theory and musicianship in parallel will yield the best results. The 2 aren't inversely proportional like you're trying to prove. If a beginner learns a scale, then all his creativity will not be obliterated. It's not that tough of a concept. Here is a Wynton Kelly line, this is how it sounds. It's made up of these components. Now you make up something like that. How is that counterproductive? I'm starting the thread and it's your fault.

Grounding it in real jazz language is a really good idea.

However I do think it’s also a good idea to encourage students to use their ears as soon as possible. Jumping in at solos is of course, unrealistic and unhelpful. You encourage them first to learn simple melodies, things like perdido- and build up from there. I’ve seen this done with teenage beginners and it works great.

But in terms of listening records - yes - that is the most important thing. You need to absorb the sound of the music, fall in love with it, learn the songs. Not all learning is done in a conscious, left brain sort of way.

Part of the reason is if you learn anything by ear you are learning more than the notes; you are absorbing subtleties you may not even be away of; accents, swing, feel. Those beginners were so much more swinging when they were playing melodies by ear than when they were reading off the page. Night and day.

And the teacher who was doing this had to lobby quite hard to be allowed to teach that way, I gather.

As you get better you get more detailed in hearing what’s going on, but it all starts with the music.

Theory by and large discusses pitch choices; but jazz is as much a feeling.

[grahambop]

You tell 'em, Bog Pharma!

Sure thing, MPB!

[Christian Miller]

Anyway this is what Mike LeDonne had to say on the matter on Facebook yesterday. He puts it stronger than I would, but on the other hand - he’s Mike LeDonne, so….

’Just saw an ad for a jazz scales book. Over 300 jazz scales! WOW! imagine trying to memorize over 300 scales and then sit down and use just the right ones when you're improvising. Sound impossible? It is and the truth is that NOBODY plays like that.

This is just what Barry Harris used to rail about. Jazz education being such a huge industry all over the world but 9 times out of 10 it was being taught wrong. I'm no Barry Harris but I can tell you this, there are scales that come from all over the world but there are no "jazz" scales. Bird didn't play Jazz scales and neither did Trane or Coleman Hawkins. In fact trying to fit so called "jazz scales" into your playing will only F it up.


Let's go back a ways just for shits and giggles and think about Louis Armstrong learning jazz scales. Is it possible that he would fail his audition at a "jazz" school today for not knowing his jazz scales? Not only possible but they'd turn him away with disgusted smirk and tell him to come back someday when he's not so ignorant.


I never taught jazz scales or "be bop" scales or even modes. That's because when I was a kid I was taught that way and it never made any sense to me and actually hurt my progress. My teacher would teach me the scales to place over the chords and I'd diligently do my homework but my solos sounded like shit. They didn't sound anything like Miles Davis or Bud Powell. I thought something was horribly wrong with me because I was doing what I was told but no music was coming out.


I put all that aside and just transcribed solos and started seeing how my favorite solos were put together. I noticed while there were things that sounded like scales the notes were not always lined up the same so they really weren't scales at all. These "scales" I was hearing were always different, evolving and going in different directions. I learned the term "scaler" later on which means notes lined up in seconds like a scale but not in the order of an actual scale.


When I came to NYC I attended one of Barry Harris's classes and he laid it out in about 5 minutes. He said you simply place chromatic notes on the upbeats in traditional major and dominant scales and put the chord tones on the downbeats. That's it! The reason why "jazz scales" don't work is because the chromatic notes you add have to change depending on what note you start on in the chord. The chromatic notes that were on the upbeat when you started on the root are now landing on the downbeat when you start on the 2nd so you have to either add or subtract half steps to straighten it out. If you don't straighten it out it sounds like you turned the time around and all swing comes to a crashing halt. This is the math of music but you don't want the math to show when you're playing.


I always tell my students sometimes the brain teaches the ears and sometimes the ears teach the brain. The process is usually that the brain digests all the information to the point where it doesn't have to think about it anymore because eventually the ears take over and just hear it while the brain gets out of the way. Or maybe it's still involved on some level but it's all happening so fast when you're playing it's in a whole other gear.


The deeper into the harmony you go the more variations there are to how you can line up your notes to make what sound like different jazz scales that are not scales but lines being heard note to note fitting together like pieces of a puzzle.


I have students that are always telling me the name of some line I play. They'll ask isn't that a diminished augmented sharp 7 scale? The minute they say it my brain overloads. Who can think like that and why bother? Naming scales is not what you're trying to do. That's like thinking about every word and grammatical rule you're following while you're talking. In the end you're playing has to come out as easily and naturally as if you're talking. That's when you'll actually be "saying something".


So save yourself some money and time because there's no easy way out of this. You can't just learn a pile of scales and start improvising. You have to learn the math behind the harmony so well that it's just there without thinking about it. Some people can hear it right off the bat but most can't. I know I couldn't but once Barry shed that light I never looked back. Truth is like that, it really does set you free.’

[Donplaysguitar]

Anyway this is what Mike LeDonne had to say on the matter on Facebook yesterday. He puts it stronger than I would, but on the other hand - he’s Mike LeDonne, so….

’Just saw an ad for a jazz scales book. Over 300 jazz scales! WOW! imagine trying to memorize over 300 scales and then sit down and use just the right ones when you're improvising. Sound impossible? It is and the truth is that NOBODY plays like that.

This is just what Barry Harris used to rail about. Jazz education being such a huge industry all over the world but 9 times out of 10 it was being taught wrong. I'm no Barry Harris but I can tell you this, there are scales that come from all over the world but there are no "jazz" scales. Bird didn't play Jazz scales and neither did Trane or Coleman Hawkins. In fact trying to fit so called "jazz scales" into your playing will only F it up.


Let's go back a ways just for shits and giggles and think about Louis Armstrong learning jazz scales. Is it possible that he would fail his audition at a "jazz" school today for not knowing his jazz scales? Not only possible but they'd turn him away with disgusted smirk and tell him to come back someday when he's not so ignorant.


I never taught jazz scales or "be bop" scales or even modes. That's because when I was a kid I was taught that way and it never made any sense to me and actually hurt my progress. My teacher would teach me the scales to place over the chords and I'd diligently do my homework but my solos sounded like shit. They didn't sound anything like Miles Davis or Bud Powell. I thought something was horribly wrong with me because I was doing what I was told but no music was coming out.


I put all that aside and just transcribed solos and started seeing how my favorite solos were put together. I noticed while there were things that sounded like scales the notes were not always lined up the same so they really weren't scales at all. These "scales" I was hearing were always different, evolving and going in different directions. I learned the term "scaler" later on which means notes lined up in seconds like a scale but not in the order of an actual scale.


When I came to NYC I attended one of Barry Harris's classes and he laid it out in about 5 minutes. He said you simply place chromatic notes on the upbeats in traditional major and dominant scales and put the chord tones on the downbeats. That's it! The reason why "jazz scales" don't work is because the chromatic notes you add have to change depending on what note you start on in the chord. The chromatic notes that were on the upbeat when you started on the root are now landing on the downbeat when you start on the 2nd so you have to either add or subtract half steps to straighten it out. If you don't straighten it out it sounds like you turned the time around and all swing comes to a crashing halt. This is the math of music but you don't want the math to show when you're playing.


I always tell my students sometimes the brain teaches the ears and sometimes the ears teach the brain. The process is usually that the brain digests all the information to the point where it doesn't have to think about it anymore because eventually the ears take over and just hear it while the brain gets out of the way. Or maybe it's still involved on some level but it's all happening so fast when you're playing it's in a whole other gear.


The deeper into the harmony you go the more variations there are to how you can line up your notes to make what sound like different jazz scales that are not scales but lines being heard note to note fitting together like pieces of a puzzle.


I have students that are always telling me the name of some line I play. They'll ask isn't that a diminished augmented sharp 7 scale? The minute they say it my brain overloads. Who can think like that and why bother? Naming scales is not what you're trying to do. That's like thinking about every word and grammatical rule you're following while you're talking. In the end you're playing has to come out as easily and naturally as if you're talking. That's when you'll actually be "saying something".


So save yourself some money and time because there's no easy way out of this. You can't just learn a pile of scales and start improvising. You have to learn the math behind the harmony so well that it's just there without thinking about it. Some people can hear it right off the bat but most can't. I know I couldn't but once Barry shed that light I never looked back. Truth is like that, it really does set you free.’

A piece of a scale is still a scale. If it starts from a tone other than the root it's a mode, or a scale starting from a note other than the root.

The Trane Omnibook reveals scalar passages in his solos here and there, so yeah, Trane played scales.

Scalar practice has it's place, just like workouts for an athlete have their place in support and enablement of a sport. Playing an instrument is physical act.

Scalar practice has to be taught in the approriate context. How hard is it to say that scales alone do not equate to jazz language?

[princeplanet]

Anyway this is what Mike LeDonne had to say on the matter on Facebook yesterday. He puts it stronger than I would, but on the other hand - he’s Mike LeDonne, so….

’Just saw an ad for a jazz scales book. Over 300 jazz scales! WOW! imagine trying to memorize over 300 scales and then sit down and use just the right ones when you're improvising. Sound impossible? It is and the truth is that NOBODY plays like that.

This is just what Barry Harris used to rail about. Jazz education being such a huge industry all over the world but 9 times out of 10 it was being taught wrong. I'm no Barry Harris but I can tell you this, there are scales that come from all over the world but there are no "jazz" scales. Bird didn't play Jazz scales and neither did Trane or Coleman Hawkins. In fact trying to fit so called "jazz scales" into your playing will only F it up.


Let's go back a ways just for shits and giggles and think about Louis Armstrong learning jazz scales. Is it possible that he would fail his audition at a "jazz" school today for not knowing his jazz scales? Not only possible but they'd turn him away with disgusted smirk and tell him to come back someday when he's not so ignorant.


I never taught jazz scales or "be bop" scales or even modes. That's because when I was a kid I was taught that way and it never made any sense to me and actually hurt my progress. My teacher would teach me the scales to place over the chords and I'd diligently do my homework but my solos sounded like shit. They didn't sound anything like Miles Davis or Bud Powell. I thought something was horribly wrong with me because I was doing what I was told but no music was coming out.


I put all that aside and just transcribed solos and started seeing how my favorite solos were put together. I noticed while there were things that sounded like scales the notes were not always lined up the same so they really weren't scales at all. These "scales" I was hearing were always different, evolving and going in different directions. I learned the term "scaler" later on which means notes lined up in seconds like a scale but not in the order of an actual scale.


When I came to NYC I attended one of Barry Harris's classes and he laid it out in about 5 minutes. He said you simply place chromatic notes on the upbeats in traditional major and dominant scales and put the chord tones on the downbeats. That's it! The reason why "jazz scales" don't work is because the chromatic notes you add have to change depending on what note you start on in the chord. The chromatic notes that were on the upbeat when you started on the root are now landing on the downbeat when you start on the 2nd so you have to either add or subtract half steps to straighten it out. If you don't straighten it out it sounds like you turned the time around and all swing comes to a crashing halt. This is the math of music but you don't want the math to show when you're playing.


I always tell my students sometimes the brain teaches the ears and sometimes the ears teach the brain. The process is usually that the brain digests all the information to the point where it doesn't have to think about it anymore because eventually the ears take over and just hear it while the brain gets out of the way. Or maybe it's still involved on some level but it's all happening so fast when you're playing it's in a whole other gear.


The deeper into the harmony you go the more variations there are to how you can line up your notes to make what sound like different jazz scales that are not scales but lines being heard note to note fitting together like pieces of a puzzle.


I have students that are always telling me the name of some line I play. They'll ask isn't that a diminished augmented sharp 7 scale? The minute they say it my brain overloads. Who can think like that and why bother? Naming scales is not what you're trying to do. That's like thinking about every word and grammatical rule you're following while you're talking. In the end you're playing has to come out as easily and naturally as if you're talking. That's when you'll actually be "saying something".


So save yourself some money and time because there's no easy way out of this. You can't just learn a pile of scales and start improvising. You have to learn the math behind the harmony so well that it's just there without thinking about it. Some people can hear it right off the bat but most can't. I know I couldn't but once Barry shed that light I never looked back. Truth is like that, it really does set you free.’

Dr Miller, you are indefatigable! Not only do you win 99% of the arguments on this forum, but you could just as easily win every argument should you wish to swap sides!

Still, I'm sure you should be doing more playing, and less typing!

In admiration...

[Christian Miller]

Dr Miller, you are indefatigable! Not only do you win 99% of the arguments on this forum, but you could just as easily win every argument should you wish to swap sides!

Still, I'm sure you should be doing more playing, and less typing!

In admiration...

TBF that one was a copy/paste

[Christian Miller]

A piece of a scale is still a scale. If it starts from a tone other than the root it's a mode, or a scale starting from a note other than the root.

The Trane Omnibook reveals scalar passages in his solos here and there, you yeah, Trane played scales.

Scalar practice has it's place, just like workouts for an athlete have their place in support and enablement of a sport. Playing an instrument is physical act.

Scalar practice has to be taught in the approriate context. How hard is it to say that scales alone do not equate to jazz language?

Not sure if you read Mike’s post properly.

[Donplaysguitar]

Not sure if you read Mike’s post properly.

Can't disagree, who's Mike?

[Christian Miller]

Can't disagree, who's Mike?

Ok you ar either trolling or you really haven’t read it lol. Start at the first sentence.

[Christian Miller]

I mean it is quite long. But then why respond lol?

[PMB]

I really don't doubt that it is 'fascinating' (Giant Steps etc.) - I'm just not much drawn to music as something interesting or fascinating in the way a complex line of thought might be fascinating.

I'm 'fascinated' by Stardust - or a Parker ballad - but it's not the same sense of 'fascination'

(it's the kind mentioned in the song: 'but this time it isn't fascination, or a dream that will fade and fall apart - this time it's love .....' )

not fascination as in 'Einstein's theory fascinated me from the start....'

I'm a complete sucker for a Parker ballad but I imagine there was a generation of listeners raised on Johnny Hodges who felt the same way about Bird as you do about Coltrane. Admittedly, Giant Steps isn't my fave 'Trane - that place goes to the album, Crescent - but there have been many occasions in my own musical listening where "fascination turned to love" (to quote the old song "Fascination").

[Donplaysguitar]

Ok you ar either trolling or you really haven’t read it lol. Start at the first sentence.

Sorry, Mike who?

[Christian Miller]

Sorry, Mike who?

Oh ... you