Functional Tonal vs Modal Harmony and Berklee greek names

[pamosmusic]

Here’s maybe something useful (or not).

I use chord scale theory a lot when I practice.

I might take a piece of vocabulary — a short one measure lick or something from a transcription — and play it over the root structure of all the chords in a tune. Then I’ll do the same thing but play the lick off the upper structure built on the third, and the chord scale I assign to the chord will determine what that lick looks like exactly. Then I’ll do the same thing off the fifth, then the seventh, second, fourth, sixth,

So chord scale theory is a way of extrapolating out a piece of vocabulary into all these less straightforward applications, and I find it extremely useful in that respect.

Though a disclaimer: I always do it in the order described above, though sometimes I put the sixth in earlier. So i usually run out of time before I get through most of the list, which means I play root structure stuff a gazillion times, stuff of the third a ton, stuff off the fifth and sixth a lot, the seventh and ninth sometimes, the fourth rarely.

So in actual result, it all really skews toward chord toney sounding stuff. But it’s a super useful approach for me.

[Bobby Timmons]

You haven't been reading it. That's not what it's saying, that's the point. It's about options, not rigid instructions.

I wasn't characterizing cst as a poor model for improv.. because it's misunderstood by students and taught wrong. I was addressing others' view of that you foo of foos, trying to straw man me. I associate scales with chords and view this practice as indispensable when applied correctly.

[ragman1]

Edit.

The link I posted to a Search result yesterday has timed out. What I was suggesting is that if you put 'Chord Scale Theory' into the Search box here it brings up several very old threads about CST. Makes interesting reading.

[ragman1]

trying to straw man me..

Don't bother with the straw man crap, Jimmy, especially me. I've no idea what it means anyway.

because it's misunderstood by students and taught wrong. I associate scales with chords and view this practice as indispensable when applied correctly.

I'm glad we agree on that.

[Bobby Timmons]

Don't bother with the straw man crap, Jimmy, especially me. I've no idea what it means anyway.

I'm glad we agree on that.

We're on the same side. That's why I didn't understand why you were straw manning me. Straw man means when you falsely try to prove that the other is wrong by proving wrong an argument that they didn't say or mean.

[Christian Miller]

You haven't been reading it. That's not what it's saying, that's the point. It's about options, not rigid instructions.



I've said that too.

But can anyone show me where it says CST should be taught straight away to beginners without any prior teaching? I haven't seen that anywhere. I suspect it's yet another assumption.

It happens irl.

I was taught that way initially. Students are still taught using chord scales to improvise from day one, for instance at a jazz workshop I was observing for an assignment (NYJO academy). I can post the essay if you want lol.

This wasn’t a poor educator in this case, in fact I felt very much the opposite. In this case it was clear to me that the educator in question was trying hard to break from the standard way of doing things and when he did the results spoke for themselves. But I felt he could have gone further - whether this was due to the nature of the organisation i can’t tell you, but he moved on soon after. I think it was hard to change things.

People say it’s a strawman but jazz is quite often taught this way at beginner level.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Straw man means when you falsely try to prove that the other is wrong by proving wrong an argument that they didn't say or mean.

Good god, I'm quite sure I'm not smart enough for clever games like that! Much better things to do than plot tricks like that. Thanks for telling me. I've heard it before, of course, but it's one of those terms that I don't pay much attention to. Like gaslighting, that's another one.

Actually, that one I do understand because I looked it up. It means playing tricks on people to make them doubt their own reality. Like one of those old films where they try to drive the wife potty so they can get the money, or whatever.

Sorry, I ramble. OK, what made me say that was this:

Only using cst and going here are the scales to each chord now play jazz is obviously an inferior way to teach a beginner.

I'd been saying that actually CST was not a precise set of do's and don'ts but a complex series of possible options for various situations. It was never 'Here are the scales to each chord now play jazz'. The whole argument was that's the way it's often presented and thought of, and hence derided as a teaching method.

Sorry if I read what you said and thought that's what you meant.

[ragman1]

It happens irl.

I was taught that way initially. Students are still taught using chord scales to improvise from day one, for instance at a jazz workshop I was observing for an assignment (NYJO academy). I can post the essay if you want lol.

People say it’s a strawman but jazz is quite often taught this way at beginner level.

But it's obviously far too complex to teach at beginner level. Like starting EFL classes with Shakespeare.

So how was it presented? If it was 'Over Dm-G7-C play the C major scale because that's where the chords come from' that's fair enough. I mean, that's not rocket science and I wouldn't even call it CST. It's just basic understanding, like learning the alphabet.

[ragman1]

Interestingly, the Wiki entry says this:

'The chord-scale system is a method of matching, from a list of possible chords, a list of possible scales. The system has been widely used since the 1970s. However, the majority of older players used the chord tone/chord arpeggio method.'

That says the CS System is considered modern and the chord tone/arpeggio method is for old players. But, here, most of you are saying use the old way.

Interesting.

[Christian Miller]

But it's obviously far too complex to teach at beginner level. Like starting EFL classes with Shakespeare.

So how was it presented? If it was 'Over Dm-G7-C play the C major scale because that's where the chords come from' that's fair enough. I mean, that's not rocket science and I wouldn't even call it CST. It's just basic understanding, like learning the alphabet.

At some point in the course the students were presented with this sort of manual of scales to practice. It was quite a substantial document irc. (This was a school age group btw)

The whole class practiced the scales together on the progression and then a lot of session time was spent going around the group with everyone taking a chorus.

Some students were enthusiastic about this but I’d say the majority weren’t. Also, the level of the soloing was as you can imagine quite poor, so I could see many of the more musical students eyes glazing over somewhat. Intriguingly, while the class was made up of both boys and girls enthusiasm for this approach was highly gendered. (I have my own theories about this.)

I would say from my experience that this is a common model for a jazz workshop and I wouldn’t have paid it much thought if it wasn’t so manifestly unsuccessful compared to some of the other things the class was doing, for example, getting students to split off into small groups and learn the heads of tunes by ear. (The teacher had to fight hard to get this approved by the music director; other classes read from charts.)

The results were that everyone swung and phrased convincingly when playing the melodies and head arrangements and sounded hesitant and halting when soloing. They also sounded notably better in their ensembles than the more advanced groups playing music from charts. (Admittedly the advanced groups were playing Spain etc as opposed to Perdido… but even so.)

So I think we can do better here, and try and connect learning to solo more with the ears and the elements of the lessons that worked really well. I have some ideas I’d love to try. It sounds like Peter is out there doing it.

But this is such a common model for workshops it’s kind of become the ingrained way of doing it. Musicians tend to teach the way they were taught. Organisations become ingrained in their approach.

[Christian Miller]

Interestingly, the Wiki entry says this:

'The chord-scale system is a method of matching, from a list of possible chords, a list of possible scales. The system has been widely used since the 1970s. However, the majority of older players used the chord tone/chord arpeggio method.'

That says the CS System is considered modern and the chord tone/arpeggio method is for old players. But, here, most of you are saying use the old way.

Interesting.

I mean, yes. But I’d say the Wikipedia article is about 30 years out of date in this simple narrative lol. The older gen today came up using CST.

Historically CST became popular in the 60s and 70s. Nettles and Graf give the credit to Berklee for this saying that system originated with the school. Three relevant points

1) Berklee accredited as a college in 1973 - accreditation requires a formal syllabus to be taught
2) Berklee at this point (to quote Jimmy blue note) a ‘finishing school’ for advanced students
3) the emphasis of much (though not all the faculty) on progressive jazz and fusion

Actually I think the spread of CST into lower levels of jazz study may have as much to do with Aebersold… but the increase of students learning jazz in workshops as opposed to simply learning from records and playing increased hugely at this point and there was a need for a syllabus. Aebersold is part of that explosion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

At some point in the course the students were presented with this sort of manual of scales to practice. It was quite a substantial document irc. (This was a school age group btw)

The whole class practiced the scales together on the progression and then a lot of session time was spent going around the group with everyone taking a chorus.

Some students were enthusiastic about this but I’d say the majority weren’t. Also, the level of the soloing was as you can imagine quite poor, so I could see many of the more musical students eyes glazing over somewhat

manifestly unsuccessful

Sounds completely awful and thoughtless. Not the way to teach anything, let alone complicated jazz.

it’s kind of become the ingrained way of doing it. Musicians tend to teach the way they were taught. Organisations become ingrained in their approach.

There's no answer to that. Any decent teacher would dump that nonsense and start their own school. And the results would simply make the point.

[ragman1]

2) Berklee at this point (to quote Jimmy blue note) a ‘finishing school’ for advanced students

That sounds better.

[GuyBoden]

Aebersold is part of that explosion.

Yes, the Aebersold Scale Syllabus:



Aebersold's free stuff is still available here:
https://www.jazzbooks.com/mm5/downlo...e-syllabus.pdf

https://www.jazzbooks.com/mm5/downlo...K-handbook.pdf

https://www.jazzbooks.com/mm5/downlo...menclature.pdf

[Christian Miller]

Sounds completely awful and thoughtless. Not the way to teach anything, let alone complicated jazz.



There's no answer to that. Any decent teacher would dump that nonsense and start their own school. And the results would simply make the point.

I know you think that you would be able to do a better job, but there’s a lot of factors at play. The person in question has my respect as a player and an educator.

On the other hand his higher ups are well known musicians with storied careers. No doubt better players and musicians than me. As critical of their methods as I might be, my intention is not to be disrespectful or dismissive, but would also aim to be constructive. They might have their own reasoning.

If I taught for, say, Berklee (lol) I’d presumably be required to teach the syllabus for the class and be assessed on my ability to do this.

Important point. No qualifications required to be an internet mouth user.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

I know you think that you would be able to do a better job

I wish you wouldn't say things like this. It never crossed my mind.

well known musicians with storied careers.

That doesn't necessarily make them good teachers, as I'm sure you know.

No qualifications required to be an internet mouth user.

Your words, not mine :-)

[Tal_175]

Here’s maybe something useful (or not).

I use chord scale theory a lot when I practice.

I might take a piece of vocabulary — a short one measure lick or something from a transcription — and play it over the root structure of all the chords in a tune. Then I’ll do the same thing but play the lick off the upper structure built on the third, and the chord scale I assign to the chord will determine what that lick looks like exactly. Then I’ll do the same thing off the fifth, then the seventh, second, fourth, sixth,

So chord scale theory is a way of extrapolating out a piece of vocabulary into all these less straightforward applications, and I find it extremely useful in that respect.

Though a disclaimer: I always do it in the order described above, though sometimes I put the sixth in earlier. So i usually run out of time before I get through most of the list, which means I play root structure stuff a gazillion times, stuff of the third a ton, stuff off the fifth and sixth a lot, the seventh and ninth sometimes, the fourth rarely.

So in actual result, it all really skews toward chord toney sounding stuff. But it’s a super useful approach for me.

These sorts of applications (and many others) are the reason why I've been cultivating the parallel view in the last 3-4 years. Nowadays I find even the functional substitutions too derivative. I prefer directly relating them to the chord as a voicing. I'm becoming a parallel absolutist, lol.

The funny thing about CST is I suspect most people actually use it in a derivative way. They are stripping away the only good thing about it. So, they learn 5 or 7 position black dot patterns of the major scale, the melodic minor scale and the harmonic minor scale. Then they learn application rules such as if you play MM from the third of a m7b5 chord, you get locrian #2, if you play major scale from the 7th of a min7 you get dorian etc. One can get good at moving their black box shapes around chords without even being aware of or hearing the chord tones.

It may seem like those who use CST this way are lazy and they are just kicking the can down the road, but it's not even that easy to get good at mentally moving blackbox shapes around this way. It's more like they are pushing the container up the hill.

[Christian Miller]

I wish you wouldn't say things like this. It never crossed my mind.

Then why post stuff like this ?

Any decent teacher would dump that nonsense and start their own school. And the results would simply make the point.

If anything that seems worse to me.

That doesn't necessarily make them good teachers, as I'm sure you know.

No, of course, it's not that simple. There's all kinds of things at play here. Think of working for any organisation. Think of the context and the specificity of one's experience.

And it's not simply good/bad teacher.

Barry Harris was great teacher but I don't think he'd have done so well with a class of fairly non-committal preteens at Grade 5-8 on their instruments. You need a different kind of teacher and a different approach for different contexts. Some are good at multiple roles - others have mostly experience teaching at elite institutions and don't quite understand the world outside them, and so on.

Your words, not mine :-)

Was that intended to be clever? Maybe you can explain it to me as I am quite dim.

[GuyBoden]

Maybe, but maybe not, some beginners, if reading this thread, might be asking the following question:

What approach is better than CST for learning to play Jazz?

[Christian Miller]

Maybe, but maybe not, some beginners, if reading this thread, might be asking the following question:

What approach is better than CST for learning to play Jazz?

Before giving my thoughts I'd like to expand that question a little - what does 'learning to play jazz' mean to you?

I have a very specific idea of what it means to me (which you might already know) - what I'd want a improver, intermediate and advanced level jazz student to know - and ways of getting there, but this might be radically different to yours. (I also know the main themes of dissatisfaction people seem to find with their playing.)

I'd like to hear your idea of what that learning goal looks like without prejudicing your response.

[pamosmusic]

… but I don't think he'd have done so well with a class of fairly non-committal preteens at Grade 5-8 on their instruments. You need a different kind of teacher and a different approach for different contexts.

You rang?

[Christian Miller]

You rang?

Just for one week, go full Barry. See what happens.

[pamosmusic]

Just for one week, go full Barry. See what happens.

I'll walk in and lean up against the keyboard and say ...

"bee boo ba dee dop di doopity doo dah"

[pamosmusic]

On a more serious note, we did just finish a concert so I have a bit of flexibility to start working on improvising more.

My inclination is to go the Randy Vincent route with riff tunes and have them work on those kind of like licks. The youngest group (after the ones who haven't gotten instruments yet) played C Jam Blues on the concert, so that'll be a good one.

[GuyBoden]

Before giving my thoughts I'd like to expand that question a little - what does 'learning to play jazz' mean to you?

In my opinion, the main factor of learning to play Jazz is obviously being able to improvise over Jazz Standards, playing what you hear in your mind, a combination of pre-learned licks and very occasionally pure improvisation.

I believe hearing Jazz music in your mind is the essential first step, so listening is essential.

What Jazz isn't is; chords grips, fretboard patterns, note intervals, I see these as mechanical devices. But, they need to be learned as they are our tools to create improvised Jazz.