The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 164
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    My best guess is that CST is a sort of theoretical response to the ‘pattern-playing’ of Coltrane (giants steps - love supreme).

    The first time I heard this playing - and still if I listen to it now - it strikes me strongly as ill-conceived, over intellectual - way way less musical than the playing style which it tried so hard to break with.


    The rise of jazz education has followed hard upon the development of this new style - was self-consciously obsessed with being ‘a la mode’ - and thus presented a hugely distorted picture of jazz to students who attended jazz colleges all over the world.

    This just added extra impetus to this style and generated a great deal of music I find unpleasant (none of the 'pretty notes' Parker took himself to be looking for anymore), uninteresting and frustrating. I also think it is largely responsible (along with the rise of what I believe is called 'rock-n'-roll') for the deep unpopularity of jazz in our culture post 1963 ish. (It is notable that e.g. Bill Evans, who played across this historical process - took no notice of it at all. The evolution of his style across the years is noticeably unaffected by vertical - pattern-based - conceptions.)


    My independence from jazz-education has helped me hugely I suspect (I dig e.g. Lester Young, Billie Holiday and Louis Armstrong too, which has helped maintain perspective).


    At any rate my perspective - is a mixture of John Mehegen's functional harmony (Roman numerals - three basic chord types) and over the last ten years, a BH style approach. Plotting how this stands to the ‘what scales can we play ‘over’ this sound?’ approach - is hugely difficult and not very interesting. If you want to play in a post-Coltrane way you must use something like CST as your framework. If you don’t, then using CST as your framework is going to put pointless conceptual trouble between you and the music you want to play. If you want to sound like Jim Hall playing with Paul Desmond - or like Paul Desmond playing with Jim Hall - you need to put all your energy into horizontal issues to do with what happens when one sound changes into another - and not into vertical issues to do with what notes will ‘fit’ ‘over’ a given sound.


    That last issue could be really important for people - 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).


    The jazz colleges wanted to produce players who sounded hip and up to the minute in their playing - because, for one thing, they were nervous about their rational - the justification for their existence. ‘Jazz college’ is up there with ‘military intelligence’ as a phrase that seems to be inconsistent with itself!. What that meant in 1974 is a style and approach which strikes me as a genuine mistake or ‘wrong-turn’ in the development and evolution of the music. (Go on - call me a reactionary!)


    CST generates ‘hip’ sounds over a static chord - it is not well suited to understand American songbook harmony - the primary feature of which is constant forward motion.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    If Richie Hart is to be believed, CST was invented to explain chords to horn players who didn’t play piano.

    I’m sure there’s a lot more to the story, but with the obvious development of modal jazz (which is not quite so modal as it might seem), the needs of the academy and the move from musicians like Gary Burton away from standards harmony towards something more pop/rock influenced meant that the move towards this type of improvisation approach was a historical trajectory. THIS IS IMPORTANT- I don’t get the impression those guys were interested in devising a system for teaching old fashioned jazz, they were looking towards the future.
    (Metheny learned to play jazz from records and on the band stand, for example. The Gary Burton/Steve Swallow stuff expanded his horizons beyond being a bop player.)

    The application of this system to the teaching of jazz I think has resulted from a combination of things; but I doubt that any competent teachers focussed on traditional jazz language etc would use it this way. However, people get the wrong end of the stick from books.

    Hal Galper derides it as a short cut. There’s a reliable, time honoured way of sounding like classic players, and it’s by learning their solos by ear, singing, then playing them and internalising the licks, lines and melodic sense.

    As a side note, it’s been interesting digging back into the 1960s music and seeing how chord scale theory was still not quite in its modern form for many players; it was obviously evolving.

    For instance, Strayhorn was a trailblazer for ‘melodic minor’ sounds before this era, but how he conceived of them I have no idea. I think he liked augmented triad upper structures.

    At least with a lot of the early 60s players the diminished scale seems to be a preferred choice for 7b5 chords… Jerry Coker’s book was published in 1964 IIRC, and has the system in recognisable form. It’s been a while since i looked at it I’m not sure he talks about melodic minor modes at this time, but he does talk about diminished and whole tone. Although, Tristano was teaching melodic minor on dominant as far back as the late 40s according to Peter Ind. And George Russell had the Lydian Augmented. And then there’s Barry who was doing his own thing.

    So it seems to me that the Chord Scale Theory we know today took diverse sources and synthesised them into a standardised form which may give a bit of an ahistorical or simplified idea of how those earlier players were thinking even during the post bop era. Also some stuff that I think is beautiful and important has fallen by the wayside.

    There’s other more philosophical questions about the whole system as well.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-07-2022 at 07:13 PM.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Any theory of organizing 12 tones has the potential to sound beautifully expressive and personal or on the other hand, derivative, cliched or "academic". The difference is in the time taken to extricate one's personal preferences (taste) from the huge body of options of lexicon, syntax without semantic content.
    In other words, Hank Mobley doesn't sound more expressive because he's hip to some kind of truth that is superior to an ordering system of scales and associated chords, but because he did the work to own the language and he's feeling it.
    It takes a long time to master an improvisational language. Even more challenging if you take as your baseline a larger vocabulary of harmonic possibilities. Yeah the bar is higher, and it takes a lot of time to master it, but mastery is beautifully lyrical and swings after you've achieved it.
    It may be simplistic to say but don't judge the works of a master from another era and assume there's some superiority of the musical approach because you're comparing what you like with players who are still exploring and finding the potential of a more contemporary approach.

    I listen to early Jackie McLean and I hear Parker, but Parker as Parker had done it. It's cool but it's not nearly as impressive. Jackie's later work however shows maturity, mastery and something very personal. In that respect, I hear him having explored, transcended and owned Parker's own language and there's something daringly beautiful about it. I will add that a lot of people, critics and musicians couldn't get what McLean was doing so they put him down.

    I appreciate your judgements on the shortcomings of Chord Scale Theory in the hands of players who have not achieved mastery of the approach, but it's the nature of jazz to keep growing, to find new frontiers that may or may not provide more sophisticated options, but to keep trying and not be constrained by what no longer challenges one's self.
    That's where expanding harmonic ideas come from: providing options for those who see the excitement of options where they can find their OWN mastery through time and experience.

    It did take Parker time and effort to transcend Hawk, and it took time for Newk to rise from the shadow of Prez and a lot of people didn't get it. That's more a statement about the relationship of perception and judgement on the misunderstood than on the validity of a musical genre.

    It's so convenient to put down things that are outside of one's native comfort zone at the time. I find a challenging satisfaction in unravelling the potentials of an expanding horizon. It's only academic until the personal filters and dimensions of personal expression turn it into music.

    That's the way I see it anyway.

    One thing I have noticed. There are a lot of masterful musicians who have prejudicial opinions, but ones earned through applications of their OWN filters. There is also a dangerous tendency for others to mirror or assume those judgements as gospel, to quote the put-downs of a master and assume them as guidelines for dismissal of an approach without even trying to understand. But hey, just sayin' that the best music comes from an open mind and open ears. My own humble opinion anyway.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    great post Christian - I'm working on personal impressions much more than on this sort of specialist knowledge of the evolution of jazz-teaching methods....

    Jimmy BN - we discussed the connection between theory and practice in rather general terms in a recent thread.

    there is no direct and clear connection between any particular way of conceptualising or describing the essential structures of the music and how one plays - for all sorts of different reasons (one is - as you point out - to do with how well or poorly one grasps the description being offered). But another maybe that a given description may be much more true to or appropriate for one particular style than another

    the whole point of the post though is to suggest that there is some connection between how you understand or talk about what is going on in the music and how you are likely to sound - and I think there is enough in that idea for it to be worth exploring. In particular that there might be a mismatch between the way many people - post the emergence of jazz-colleges - think about the music, and the sort of sounds they really want to make.

    I've been involved in this stuff too long to worry too much about the suggestion that I'm just putting down what I don't understand...(one point here is that loving music doesn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with how one understands anything. to suppose that it does strikes me as over-intellectualising the enjoyment of music.)

    I actually dis-like a great deal of post-later-Coltrane jazz and I'm still totally nuts about e.g. early Sonny, Bud Powell, Parker, Bill Evans, early Ornette, etc. etc. etc.

    My concern is that there might be some connection between a certain picture of harmony and a way of playing that I am consistently put-off by - and that there might be many people wanting to learn to play 'mainstream' jazz who are suffering because their only theoretical framework is CST.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    One of the things I’ve observed as a teacher is that students who focus on a CST approach to improv often refer to “ right notes vs wrong notes “ as the determination of effectiveness.
    This of course leaves out concepts like phrasing, melodic intervals, etc etc. CST is certainly something to be aware of.. but as a tool. Analysis of chord scale relationships can work to increase your sensitivity to sounds you like but is no substitute for learning melodic vocabulary in the context of tunes.If CST is all it took then why not play the same solo on any given set of tunes with “ rhythm changes” for example? lol

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad

    My concern is that there might be some connection between a certain picture of harmony and a way of playing that I am consistently put-off by - and that there might be many people wanting to learn to play 'mainstream' jazz who are suffering because their only theoretical framework is CST.
    Yeah I get that. Very true.
    I think too, that people mistake "jazz education" via an institution for the actual process of learning to play music. It's not. Not by a long shot. Hear that, all you students hoping to become jazz musicians by going to school? It's not. What it IS is a means by which a motivated student can acquire a toolset they may never have been aware of. There's also the chance that osmosis by association imparts some of the non quantifiable aspects of playing to a student, but no, music is not taught at a music school, tools are. The things people love about great musicians are things they did outside of any lessons they practiced.

    Benny Golson told me he was jealous of students who were able to attend [a really good school] but the real education begins after graduation...on the bandstand. I happen to like the music of David Binney, of Josh Redmond, of Kenny Garrett, of Mark Turner who show an obvious fluency with the harmonic foundation given within chord scale theory, but they learned phrasing, space and a very acute sense of harmonic causality. I do think an argument can be made that things some schools teach can indeed be turned into music that holds its own in the canon.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Apoyando1
    One of the things I’ve observed as a teacher is that students who focus on a CST approach to improv often refer to “ right notes vs wrong notes “ as the determination of effectiveness.
    This of course leaves out concepts like phrasing, melodic intervals, etc etc. CST is certainly something to be aware of.. but as a tool. Analysis of chord scale relationships can work to increase your sensitivity to sounds you like but is no substitute for learning melodic vocabulary in the context of tunes.If CST is all it took then why not play the same solo on any given set of tunes with “ rhythm changes” for example? lol
    OH YEAH!!! One thing I hated in music school was the prejudicial term "avoid notes". But historically, the curriculum at the school I went to was established in another era and I felt they were shamefully remiss in knowing the musics of those who played outside that system. That's my beef.
    It's maybe a digression from the spirit of the thread but I know that the man who created the curriculum guidelines at the school where he taught never intended that it should be a static system. But as his own concept grew, the administrations were reluctant to overhaul the program in a way that would have left out the majority of the teachers who worked there. So it is static.
    CST IS frozen...by teachers who don't play outside their own early and cumbersome concepts of it. Nope. I wouldn't want to learn bad outdated sounds from them either.
    It's a tool. Pray you can find the means by which any tool can become an extension of yourself.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Groyniad - Good to have you back here.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    You can use theory for whatever purpose you want. You can use it to be lyrical and non Coltrane wankory if you want. That's my aim. What about Teddy Wilson? He was ridiculously lyrical. You think he didn't use theory? No that isn't true that cst is only helpful for 1 chord. You change the pallet of notes when the chords change while not necessarily interrupting your line. It's called practice lol.

    About choosing your own style, I would say that's the best way to go. Jazz education is enriching and interesting but you still gotta choose your own style. Some educators are really one sided and some are great. I really like the guys at open studio. They embrace a lot of music and have really good style modern while honoring the tradition and they speak the truth all the time.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    I bought one of Julia Child's French cooking books and it didn't help my barbeque a bit.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Sorry guys but this is a mess.

    The first sentence of the OP says “my best guess” and that is exactly what it is. Pulled right out of the historical rectal database. If you’re going to guess, admit that you don’t know. And on TOP of the guesswork if you want to throw some shit against the wall to see if it will stick… well then I guess you do this, lol.

    You have conflated (1) Jazz styles and periods with (2) jazz book pedagogy, and (3) collegiate Jazz Ed.

    Demonstrate knowledge/expertise on each separately, then talk smack.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Sorry guys but this is a mess.

    The first sentence of the OP says “my best guess” and that is exactly what it is. .......

    D.

    hu·mil·i·ty


    noun



    • a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness.



  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by A. Kingstone
    hu·mil·i·ty


    noun



    • a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness.


    First tell that to the endless posters who rag on and on about Jazz Ed (even though they know not the first thing about it, but are just certain that it’s bad in every way).

    if it’s not the average player who majored in something else or nothing at all, they’re all experts. We even have numbskull books about it “School for Cool”, or whatever it was. Pure drivel by a journalism major or some such.

    this has been going on for decades, so keep it separate please;

    Are you a “swing boy” who despises the flat fifths of the boppers,
    are you a bopper who finds cool and post bop to be sacrilegious?
    are you a jazzer who hates Miles’ invention of jazz/rock fusion?

    Well then say that first.
    Then tell us what you know - not think - about Jazz Ed.
    Then tell us your definition of CST, then state your hypothesis relative to that definition.

    Otherwise, you’re displaying extracts from the jazz rectal DB.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Well you have me pegged.

    I suspect CST means Chord Scale Theory which means little to me. It may be akin to the scale syllabus pamphlet from Aebersold. I have nothing but respect for an educator like Jamey Aebersold.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    ........................


    Are you a “swing boy” who despises the flat fifths of the boppers,
    are you a bopper who finds cool and post bop to be sacrilegious?
    are you a jazzer who hates Miles’ invention of jazz/rock fusion?...............B.

    Ignoring for now the reference to rectal DB (Database?) these are interesting deliniations.


    I have always loved the breadth of jazz. Jelly Roll, Thelonious, Frisell.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    First tell that to the endless posters who rag on and on about Jazz Ed (even though they know not the first thing about it, but are just certain that it’s bad in every way).
    That was starting to peeve me. I was going to make a 'you guys are mad at theory' thread haha. I might have to now that I know there's 1 person out there that isn't certain it's bad in every way lol.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Apoyando1
    One of the things I’ve observed as a teacher is that students who focus on a CST approach to improv often refer to “ right notes vs wrong notes “ as the determination of effectiveness.
    This of course leaves out concepts like phrasing, melodic intervals, etc etc. CST is certainly something to be aware of.. but as a tool. Analysis of chord scale relationships can work to increase your sensitivity to sounds you like but is no substitute for learning melodic vocabulary in the context of tunes.If CST is all it took then why not play the same solo on any given set of tunes with “ rhythm changes” for example? lol
    And that about sums her up….

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by A. Kingstone
    Ignoring for now the reference to rectal DB (Database?) these are interesting deliniations.


    I have always loved the breadth of jazz. Jelly Roll, Thelonious, Frisell.
    I only listen to the music of Buddy Bolden

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    It’s probably my fault for widening out the discussion a bit. Not everything I said is particularly relevant. To focus it a bit.

    I can’t see that anything written here that refutes Groynaid’s basic point which is that if you want to sound like Mobley etc it might not be the best idea to start with Chord Scale Theory.

    I don’t get the impression that anyone teaches that sort of thing that way though; I obviously can’t speak for every educator but all the ones I know would say go to the records. A separate topic from chord scales etc

    I would suggest to anyone interested in learning something specific like this - find yourself a teacher who is also a skilled practitioner of the music and say that’s what you want to learn.

    Not every player wants to sound like that of course. That said it does strike me that most of the ‘advanced’ modern players on the scene that everyone idolises went through this stuff at some point, often when they were still in their teens. That’s one reason when they do chord scale based improvisation it sounds amazing.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-08-2022 at 07:03 AM.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Apoyando1
    One of the things I’ve observed as a teacher is that students who focus on a CST approach to improv often refer to “ right notes vs wrong notes “ as the determination of effectiveness.
    This of course leaves out concepts like phrasing, melodic intervals, etc etc. CST is certainly something to be aware of.. but as a tool. Analysis of chord scale relationships can work to increase your sensitivity to sounds you like but is no substitute for learning melodic vocabulary in the context of tunes.If CST is all it took then why not play the same solo on any given set of tunes with “ rhythm changes” for example? lol
    Did someone say cst was a substitute for vocab and other essential topics?

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint 55
    Did someone say cst was a substitute for vocab and other essential topics?
    Any time a critique like Groynaid’s comes up people say this. If you realise this fact, good for you! I trust you are doing at least a little ear learning/transcription every day. (Don’t they teach that at Berklee?)

    All I can say is that the fact is that people getting the wrong end of the stick about this actually forms an important income stream for me. (Although TBF by the time they are having lessons they’ve intellectually realised what they need to do.)

    A lot of my job in this case is to gently encourage and coax adult students into going outside their comfort zone of scales and systems and using their ears to learn music. People do not want to do this at first. I do this because it’s the number one thing that helped me and every teacher I know would do the same thing.

    I imagine it’s much like getting people to exercise. Easier to buy a gym membership (or another scale manual, another video course online, etc.) But you can’t buy the actual activity that will help you. You have to do it yourself.

    From some of these students I also get accounts of bad teaching. I don’t think those bad teachers are good jazz players, probably more like rock and fusion players who dabble … anyway just because you get good advice it doesn’t mean everyone is.

    There are definitely those on JGO who are in this boat.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-08-2022 at 01:37 PM.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint 55
    Did someone say cst was a substitute for vocab and other essential topics?
    Not here that that I’m aware of…did you think that’s what I was saying?Just observing from teaching that many students think that CST is the key to the kingdom and then wonder why learning this doesn’t turn them into jazz players…
    Im certainly not against CST.. it’s a useful tool.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    That's not very smart if someone thinks the only thing is running scales is it? However, being able to make up your own viable lines simply from the chords or scales is pretty essential, I would say, so I don't know how accurate it is to demonize cst. Theory and other essential musicianship topics aren't inversely proportional..

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint 55
    That's not very smart if someone thinks the only thing is running scales is it? However, being able to make up your own viable lines simply from the chords or scales is pretty essential, I would say, so I don't know how accurate it is to demonize cst. Theory and other essential musicianship topics aren't inversely proportional..
    I completely agree.. as I mentioned in my posts CST is a ( valuable )tool.. I’m hardly demonizing it And it’s not about being smart (or not)… Depending on the experiences one has learning music there can be many assumptions that don’t yield the best results.People learn differently.. so a variety of approaches INCLUDING CST are invaluable (essential)

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    My best guess is that CST is a sort of theoretical response to the ‘pattern-playing’ of Coltrane (giants steps - love supreme).

    The first time I heard this playing - and still if I listen to it now - it strikes me strongly as ill-conceived, over intellectual - way way less musical than the playing style which it tried so hard to break with.

    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.

    You are free to like or dislike, draw inspiration from or ignore whatever to choose.
    It was a bad example in my opinion to present these compositions and Coltrane
    as the driving force behind the evolution of what you don't like in recent jazz academia.

    If so inclined, check out some of the limited Coltrane interviews available and
    you will find an incredibly soft spoken, kind and humble person committed to
    pursuing his personal vision. He worked hard and gave us the best he could.
    It is my hope that many will follow such a beautiful example wherever it leads
    and the world will be a better place for it.