-
No, it's not gibberish. Have you seen him on You Tube? He's a trombonist, which surprised me, but he can play. There's a vid somewhere of him doing Giant Steps.
Originally Posted by Mick-7
But he's middle-aged, or a bit more than that, and he's teaching much younger people than him. The problem with the age gap is that it's a two-edged sword. He has the knowledge and experience and the younger people only have so much. But their minds are quicker, they're fresher, their talent is still raw. It's an old dichotomy. Each has to understand the other and that's the hard bit.
All he's saying - and I'm not necessarily siding with him - is that a new learner coming to jazz won't necessarily know what to do with the scales. They can zoom up a major, minor or dominant scale all right but they don't necessarily understand how to apply it to the chords of a tune. The talented ones will probably do a better job than some but the average player will kind of mechanically doodle with the notes. It takes a lot of experience to make them fit the chords of a tune properly.
So he's saying they might benefit more by aiming for definite notes of a chord because that way the essence of that chord is emphasised and it doesn't sound so haphazard. I think that's basically the message. It sounds better, if basic, to the listener and the player feels more certain that they're playing something meaningful. In other words it's better, at the beginning, than just throwing them in at the deep end.
I guess we either understand that or we don't. Jazz improv is not easy and can't be mastered overnight whether you're young or old.
-
03-24-2024 03:54 AM
-
I'm always serious :-) Originally Posted by pawlowski6132
-
I would see that as a chord tone approach. You run notes from the prevailing scale to connect the chord tones. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Once the chord tones are located by the student. I would probably start with diatonic upper/chromatic lower on all the triad chord tones, work on passing tones, and go from there.
All of this is easier on piano.
Whatever you call it the G# is a good note to emphasise.
A chord scale approach would be more like ‘on E7 play the E mixo b9 b13’; it might actually be talking about the exact same thing but it’s talking about all seven notes as a set.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
All this is why I never bother with CST or not-CST. I just play what I want and if I like it that's good enough.
After all, there's Miles playing D Dorian over a Dm7 in So What. Well, obviously, since he's playing notes from the C major scale (with the odd passing note) he's using CST! What a dork!
There's no answer to this kind of thinking.
-
If that’s your only analysis of what Miles is doing on SW, you are missing a lot. The way Miles is using those Dorian notes is worth careful study. Originally Posted by ragman1
It strikes me that learning how to use chord tones will help you use CST, which after all is just giving you more chord tones to choose from. (But with that comes an understanding that all those notes are different and have their own character.)
Chord scale theory would look at a Rembrandt and say ‘it’s brown.’ Which is true, of course. There is also of course, more to it.
That moment for example where after playing largely off Dm chord tones and blues he plays for the first time off the upper extensions of the Dorian. It’s a special moment in music.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Of course it's not, I know exactly what he's doing and trying to do. But it wasn't relevant to my point. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Your point appeared to be ‘it’s just the Dorian, so long losers’ or similar.
What nuance am I missing now lol?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
-
Previously in the thread someone said playing modes over functional chords was CST. So I said one does exactly the same thing over modal progressions. That, apparently, is not CST. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
My point is what's the actual difference? Except semantically, that is.
-
Mechanical application of anything without real audiation would produce poor results. But I don't think there is anything intrinsically more mechanical about chord-scales than scales. Chord-scales mean (chord) root oriented view (ie chord centric or parallel view) whereas scales are usually understood to be the tonic oriented view (or key signature view). Originally Posted by Christian Miller
It seems like the way Gary Burton taught improvisation was you get good at creating phrases in common chord scales first, then work on connecting them. This is not radically different than how Barry Harris taught improvisation. At least it was part of his pedagogy. As you noted earlier, the way he broke down each chord of a tune into scales very much corresponded to chord scales. Then he would start applying phrase building concepts to each chord using its scale and connect it to the next chord. He would continue this way until he built a whole solo. This is personally how I use chord scales (as well as for building voicings). I have also seen many resources that treated chord scales this way.
-
But that takes an inordinate amount of time. It may be okay on paper but it's not okay when actually soloing. There one hasn't any time at all. Of course, solos can be constructed and memorised but to me that's uncreative, it's just regurgitating something from memory. Really creative moments have to happen on the instant, without premeditation, so far as that is possible. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Obviously beginners can't do that and I'm not suggesting that things shouldn't be studied and understood in the practice room. They should be, then later there is a possibility of being able to solo spontaneously. It's in that environment that the creative things take place.
-
The concept is not that you just compose solos and perform them in gigs. This is a training activity towards improvisation. How can improvisation be taught as a skill? How do humans learn any high level performance discipline? By isolating key situations and practicing coming up with the "right" motions slowly and systematically until the process is internalized. That enables them to respond to other real life situations creatively at a high level. Originally Posted by ragman1
The philosophy of this type of teaching is that if you want to improvise well, then you have to practice improvising well.Last edited by Tal_175; 03-24-2024 at 10:25 AM.
-
It is indeed, MM from the 6th is Lydian #5. That's something my brain would have taken a week to notice, so thank you. Originally Posted by Mick-7
The big point here is that there is music written like this.
-
Excellent. I'd go with that. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
"The philosophy of this type of teaching is that if you want to improvise well, then you have to practice improvising well."
Yes, and as guitarists, we have the additional burden of having to use different fingerings to play phrases in different keys or tonal centers unlike, say, a pianist, who can simply repeat the same movements on the keyboard. So from a mechanical standpoint alone, if we don't practice combining and playing phrases in various positions and keys, we'll be unable to do so in real time, especially at faster tempos.
"There (when soloing) one hasn't any time at all. Of course, solos can be constructed and memorised but to me that's uncreative, it's just regurgitating something from memory."
Name a musician who never plays memorized phrases when they improvise? In fact, the greater the virtuoso, the more he is liable to do so.
"The big point here is that there is music written like this (i.e., play Lydian #5)"
Is this a tune we would know?
I found it interesting that even Steve Swallow gave the melodic minor scale 3 different names in his chord/scale lexicon. Surely he recognized they are the same scale? You'd think he'd identify them as such.
"Chord-scales mean (chord) root oriented view (i.e. chord centric or parallel view) whereas scales are usually understood to be the tonic oriented view (or key signature view)."
I don't see a notable difference between the two, every chord progression implies a particular tonal/key center and therefore a predominant scale.
-
this video elucidates this discussion I think:
-
Yes - although Barry gives a toolset for coming up with jazz phrases which CST does not. I don’t know enough about Burtons take on it but I would say most people are not Gary Burton. In mainstream jazz education (at least here) theoretical studies are supported by transcription and learning ‘language’ (or bop) Originally Posted by Tal_175
Tbh most guitarists coming into jazz don’t know the instrument well enough to get started on Barry stuff… may be different for piano.
For the beginner I’m an advocate of grips and licks. It works. Clever shit can come once sounding good has been accomplished. At that point you have the musicianship to make things like chord scales sound musical.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I’ve always gone with this definition from Nettles and Graf Originally Posted by ragman1
This will be the case regardless of the tune you are playing on.
On the flip side, modal tunes can be played non-modally
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Absolutely, I'm sure that's true. We all have our favorite little tricks, myself included. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Good point. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Chord-Scale Theory – OPEN MUSIC THEORY
Limitations of Chord-Scale Theory
Some jazz educators have pointed out limitations of the Chord-Scale approach, such as:
- The absence of voice leading between chords. Chord-Scale Theory can lead a student to see each chord as a new key center, instead of viewing an entire chord progression as derived from a parent scale. This can result in choppy, un-melodic improvisation that lacks smooth voice leading between chords.
- Lack of the chromaticism commonly used in bebop and blues-based styles. Chord-Scale Theory generally does not account for neighbor tones, passing tones, secondary leading tones, and blue notes employed by bebop musicians such as Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, and Bud Powell.
- The anachronism of applying a 1960s modal concept to tunes from 1920–50. Louis Armstrong and Charlie Parker did not think in terms of chord-scales. Educators such as Hal Galper and Hal Crook emphasize the importance of melodic embellishment, chord tone improvisation, and blues-based improvisation before delving into chord-scale relationships.
- The avoidance of the oral tradition. Chord-Scale Theory emphasizes the eye and intellect rather than the ear and intuition. Practicing chord-scale relationships does not substitute for transcribing improvised jazz solos, memorizing tunes, improvising along with recordings, or jamming with other musicians as the preferred methods of learning the oral tradition of jazz improvisation.
- The absence of voice leading between chords. Chord-Scale Theory can lead a student to see each chord as a new key center, instead of viewing an entire chord progression as derived from a parent scale. This can result in choppy, un-melodic improvisation that lacks smooth voice leading between chords.
-
Mick, the tune is "Pee Wee," by Tony Williams.
-
I hadn't thought of the melodic minor (or harmonic minor) scales as being modal vehicles but apparently it's an established concept, the following being the most useful modes, which each have a chordal reference.
Modes of Melodic Minor:
1) Minor #7 [from C]: C-D-Eb-F-G-A-B-C
2) Lydian Augmented [from Eb]: C-D-Eb-F-G-A-B-C
3) Lydian Dominant [from F]: C-D-Eb-F-G-A-B-C
4) Altered [from B]: C-D-Eb(D#)-F-G-A-B-C
I haven't looked at harmonic minor modes yet....
"Chord-Scale Theory can lead a student to see each chord as a new key center, instead of viewing an entire chord progression as derived from a parent scale."
Focusing on individual chords would be missing the forest for the trees, the chord progression is the tonal center, not any single chord in it.
-
Don't forget the mode from A. Goes with Am7b5. I don't know the Greek name. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Some slightly incomplete notes I made for an uni assignment. Found it while I was searching for the nettles/graf quote
Teaching improvisation
Most jazz improvisation learning resources in the popular domain are geared around the common approach of chord scale theory (CST), an approach that encourages the selection of pitch choices from 7 or 8 note pitch set over each the chord of a song.
This approach to teaching improvisation and harmony has been in use since at least the 1960s , before which it becomes difficult to track down recognisable forms of CST in the modern sense. (Kenny (1999) cites Mehegan (1959), which is clearly CST in a state of infancy.) based in part at least on George Russell’s earlier work the Lydian Chromatic Concept (1958) and has become the dominant paradigm in jazz education. [citation] Historically the success of the Aebersold playalong series may be responsible for this, as this was for many musicians of my generation, their first contact with jazz education.
Many criticisms have been levelled against this approach, which I will summarise here:
1)It offers a very technical and mathematical idea of jazz which ignores the cultural and traditional aspects of the music.
2)It is ‘anti-tonal’ in the sense the pitch choice are localised to each chord but do not relate to a wider sense of tonality with respect to key centres, tension and resolution in progressions and modulations before learners have assimilated key-centric approaches.
3)[incomplete]
In addition I have found from my own experiences the following
1)Most players are well versed in CST by the time they come to lessons, but they haven’t necessarily become functional jazz musicians. So, a different approach is required to help the student work through the blockage.
2)CST is a cumbersome tool for the rapid chord changes found in many jazz standards
3)CST offers too much choice – in selecting from 7 note pitch sets, many students simply feel overwhelmed. This I term the ‘blank page’ problem which also confronts composers and artists outside of music where there is a problem with how to begin the creative process.
The very term improvisation is hard to pin down. Hallam indicates a number of practices that fall under the umbrella. It’s noticeable that in her summary there is a spectrum from improvisation to composition and the performance of composed music. Taken at face value as a improvisation method rather than a way of looking at harmony, CST seems to give the impression that Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong and so on were creating their masterful statements based on spontaneous combinations of pitch sets over chords. In fact the veteran Steve Swallow describes as a myth the common idea ‘jazz is at its best when entirely spontaneous; that you make it up from whole cloth each time you pick up your horn.’
Suggestions of alternative techniques
In contrast, the tradition of improvising by variation on the melody of a song is championed by a number of jazz educators, including Tristano’s student Lee Konitz, Peter Bernstein and Bruce Forman (USC). Conrad Cork indicates this was the approach used by many early jazz musicians of the 20s and 30s . We also see it in more modern musicians like Wayne Shorter.
This approach has great appeal for the teacher, as it addresses the ‘blank page’ problem, limits the amount of necessary theoretical knowledge and provides a smooth curve of difficulty for the student as new techniques are gradually introduced rather than the sharp difficulty spike created by CST. Of course, there is no reason why CST, or any other improvisational method, cannot be combined with this melodic variation approach.
Secondly, I find it important to give the student permission to compose something, and then to seek further recompositions, ornaments and variations of that material rather than feeling they have to play something new each time. This seems to agree with what I understand of the jazz tradition. This has the effect of taking the load of the shoulders of the student.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Chunking, does it work for Jazz improv?
Today, 10:59 AM in Guitar Technique