Chordscales

[guitarjazz]

I know this seems to be a major point of contention on the forum but here goes:
What’s wrong with chord/scales? I don’t use them all the time. On many tunes where it’s appropriate I use the melody as my primary guide. Chord/scales and the lines derived from them seem just like part of the vocabulary. How do you play on Naima without them? Some of the greats used ‘em all the time. How do you play on Maiden Voyage? When I transcribed George Coleman’s lines, years ago, it sure seemed like he was using chord/scales.
Nobody is advocating improvising solely with chord/scales but advising to avoid working on them all together seems not in touch with a big facet of not-so-modern jazz playing.

[EdByrne]

I know this seems to be a major point of contention on the forum but here goes:
What’s wrong with chord/scales? I don’t use them all the time. On many tunes where it’s appropriate I use the melody as my primary guide. Chord/scales and the lines derived from them seem just like part of the vocabulary. How do you play on Naima without them? Some of the greats used ‘em all the time. How do you play on Maiden Voyage? When I transcribed George Coleman’s lines, years ago, it sure seemed like he was using chord/scales.
Nobody is advocating improvising solely with chord/scales but advising to avoid working on them all together seems not in touch with a big facet of not-so-modern jazz playing.

It's perhaps a reaction to its ubiquitous, exclusive and intolerant dominance of contemporary jazz pedagogy. Witness the incessant discourse about that topic in this forum. While it is useful, I don't think it is the best starting point for the student. I meet SO many students who are frustrated after years of that discipline, finding that their playing just sounds like a bunch of scales. The very talented can overcome this, of course, and develop beyond on their own into meaningful playing; but all too many cannot. Moreover, it is an easy refuge for the lazy and uninformed teacher.

BTW, guitarjazz, there's a great deal of melodic and rhythmic motivic material to be mined in Maiden Voyage and similar tunes--as I'm sure you know; and if there weren’t and you were improvising on a vamp, you could nonetheless create a few of your own and develop them.

[guitarjazz]

BTW, guitarjazz, there's a great deal of melodic and rhythmic motivic material to be mined in Maiden Voyage and similar tunes--as I'm sure you know; and if there weren’t and you were improvising on a vamp, you could nonetheless create a few of your own and develop them.

A big-eared friend reported, after hearing the Wayne and Herbie duo thing live, that the only recognizable part of Maiden Voyage was the first two notes!

[EdByrne]

A big-eared friend reported, after hearing the Wayne and Herbie duo thing live, that the only recognizable part of Maiden Voyage was the first two notes!

There's a great deal to be mined in those two notes--but then there's the second motive which follows, too. To paraphrase Stravinsky, I can't even begin to compose until I've narrowed the subject matter down to a single motive.

BTW, NOBODY I've ever heard on the piano plays the composition as much as Herbie. He is imo the greatest piano accompanist in jazz history. I performed with him at Alice Tully Hall, too, and he gives you a boost you'll never forget.

Re-reading your statement above reminds me that he, above all others, constantly re-composes his obligatory performances of his hits. I honestly didn't even recognize "Watermelon Man" on the Headhunters album at first: It's a good thing, I think.

[alijamieson]

I know this seems to be a major point of contention on the forum but here goes:
What’s wrong with chord/scales? I don’t use them all the time. On many tunes where it’s appropriate I use the melody as my primary guide. Chord/scales and the lines derived from them seem just like part of the vocabulary. How do you play on Naima without them? Some of the greats used ‘em all the time. How do you play on Maiden Voyage? When I transcribed George Coleman’s lines, years ago, it sure seemed like he was using chord/scales.
Nobody is advocating improvising solely with chord/scales but advising to avoid working on them all together seems not in touch with a big facet of not-so-modern jazz playing.

when i started *trying* to play jazz guitar all those years ago, i learnt all my modes and synthetic scales then tried playing them over changes and i sounded wack. aimlessly meandering about the park with no sense of direction [or swing for that matter!]

so i tried to learn easier tunes; paraphrasing the melody.

and re: naima... personally i would be frightened to trying to improvise over this tune [Coltrane's meldoy [espesh in B section] focuses on 13ths, which tommy flannagen is playign his own extensions] but somewhere i have this guide my piano teacher wrote out for me, suggesting a scale for each chord. [however i can't find it]

[EdByrne]

Naima has a very strong melody: I use that as my foundation. I don't think chords or scales at all on this tune, & lines based on development of the melody will work against any accompaniment style whatsoever. To do this effectively, you have to 1st learn the tune without the chords. Practice paraphrasing the melody as though the chords were ordinary and not an issue. Then they merely co-exist.

[Vic J]

Memorize the melody and the changes first. Investigate many recordings of the tune. Learn the chord scales and arpeggios. Do the homework. The more vocabulary that you have the freer you can be with your improv. Break the scales up into different interval combinations on the Guitar or whatever the instrument so the scales are not so mechanical sounding......

[thedwork]

... The more vocabulary that you have the freer you can be with your improv.


:yeahthat:


this is the main thing to keep in the front of your mind whenever taking musical advice from anyone. whether they're telling you learning 'chord scales' is extremely important, or that learning 'chord scales' is not very helpful at all; whether they're telling you that you should study pre-60s material almost exclusively to be an 'authentic' player, or whether they're telling you to study/listen to whatever turns you on; whether they're telling you to listen to listen/study to only jazz music to become a good jazz player, or whether they're telling you to listen to all styles of music.

Vic really put it pretty succinctly: "The more vocabulary that you have the freer you can be with your improv."

if somebody tells you that learning some type of musical idea or process, any musical idea, is useless and is to be ignored before it is investigated, i'd take that advice with a grain of salt. so i think the answer to your question is, "there's nothing wrong with chord scales." there's nothing wrong w/ any particular note, really. but that doesn't mean if you learn 'chord scales' you're necessarily going to sound good. music just doesn't work that way.

if it's music, it's worth knowing. no value judgements. do w/ it what you will. and keep in mind that people take the same information and go in infinitely different directions with that same information. for me, that's precisely one of the main reasons i love music.

everything starts w/ one note. you play from your feet up...

[Phat Boi]

Understanding chord scale relationships is really essential for comping chords. Perhaps even more then soloing. I don't think anyone downplays chord scales on here. I just think that people tend to look down on people who sound like they just run scales all day when they are soloing.

[edrowland]

I just think that people tend to look down on people who sound like they just run scales all day when they are soloing.

The alternative is people who couldn't hit a change if their life depended on it, and at a slightly later phase of development, players who can solo well but never generate any traction because they can't get the sound of jazz minor modes into their ears. I don't really get why the sins of beginning chord-scale players get brought out, without mentioning the sins of by-ear players at comparable levels of development. It's not like by-ear players don't go through a long period of sounding less than entirely perfect as well.

The discussion of tunes like Naima, and, Maiden Voyage makes me wonder about something. I don't know the answer to this, but i think it's an interesting question, and I'm wondering whether somebody can shed light on this.

They question, directly put, is whether chord-scale approaches are more relevant to post-bop jazz. I think they are.

I see two great divides in jazz (although I'm sure there are more that lie outside of the range of my listening): the swing/bop divide; and the bop/post-bop divide. No need to elaborate on the swing/bop divide. The bop/post-bop divide is less often discussed.

There may be a name for what happens to jazz after bop that has better currency, but I can't think of what it is. "Post-bop" seems inadequate to cover what happens in the 50 years of jazz that happened after the 10 years of the classic bop era. And I more than suspect that the term "post-bop" has been coopted to refer to something else.

So let me describe it as I see it. And maybe somebody can provide a better name for it. What I see happening is an increasing move toward tunes with non-functional harmony that arcs from Kind of Blue and modal approaches, via quartal harmony (McCoy Tyner, for example, although Tyner is not the first or last word in this area), through overtly and consciously non-functional harmony in 70s fusion (Hancock, Metheny, Chick Korea, John McLaughlin, Weather Report and many others), to the current tip of the jazz tradition (ok, one of the tips, the one that most interests me) in which the non-functional harmony of the 70s fusion ear is re-united with traditional accoustic instrumentation (stand-up bass in preference to electric bass, piano in preference to synths and electric pianos, &c), the tip in which non-functional harmony of the 70s is embraced and extended considerably. Simplified greatly, I admit. But that's the arc of jazz to which I wish to refer: the arc in which harmonic approaches to jazz become much more adventurous, and the arc in which the harmonic innovations of classic bop are mere baby steps.

So with that clarification in mind, let me put the question again. The great defense of the non-chordscale approach has been that "that's not how the great players learned to play jazz". I don't doubt that's true of players who came into jazz in the swing and bop eras, although I've never quite understood how Slonimsky fits into that. My reading is that -- although players of that era didn't learn that way -- they are using Slonimsky to develop a chordscale-like approach that becomes important in post-bop. The question I'd like to ask is whether it's true of players in the post-bop era. Did Herbie Hancock learn jazz within a chordscale framework? What about Metheny (who -- I believe -- is a major player in laying the foundations of the Berkely chordscale approach).

I can see that chordscale approaches may not be entirely relevant to learning to play classic bop. But what if I want to play like Herbie Hancock (post fusion), or Wayne Shorter (pre- or post-fusion), or Micheal Brecker, or, anyone on the current tip of jazz development? Are chordscale approaches relevent then?

[alijamieson]

...I can see that chordscale approaches may not be entirely relevant to learning to play classic bop. But what if I want to play like Herbie Hancock (post fusion), or Wayne Shorter (pre- or post-fusion), or Micheal Brecker, or, anyone on the current tip of jazz development? Are chordscale approaches relevent then?

Woah, chordscale... I thought we were talking about two different things here

do you mean a different scale per chord [ D Dorian, G Altered C Melodic minor for instance?)

my understanding of bop melody and soloing was that phrases, ideas, fragments and 'germs' were built apon extended arpeggios [9, 11, 13 and alterations of them]

i thought this debate was about chord [arpeggios] and scale V.S paraphrasing + doing it by ear.

or are we saying chordscales is one thing?

[EdByrne]

They question, directly put, is whether chord-scale approaches are more relevant to post-bop jazz. I think they are.

I don't think it is a matter of style or period--it's mostly about the fact that jazz musicians receive more formal academic training than in the past. I think also that, with regard to vocabulary, any & all approaches are good. My question, however, is where best to start--priorities..

I see two great divides in jazz (although I'm sure there are more that lie outside of the range of my listening): the swing/bop divide; and the bop/post-bop divide. No need to elaborate on the swing/bop divide. The bop/post-bop divide is less often discussed.

So with that clarification in mind, let me put the question again. The great defense of the non-chordscale approach has been that "that's not how the great players learned to play jazz". I don't doubt that's true of players who came into jazz in the swing and bop eras, although I've never quite understood how Slonimsky fits into that. My reading is that -- although players of that era didn't learn that way -- they are using Slonimsky to develop a chordscale-like approach that becomes important in post-bop. The question I'd like to ask is whether it's true of players in the post-bop era. Did Herbie Hancock learn jazz within a chordscale framework? What about Metheny (who -- I believe -- is a major player in laying the foundations of the Berkely chordscale approach).

S's scales can be used to gain vocabulary without a rigid chord =s scale dogma. The real issue, I think, is that using the melody & its rhythms, along with other compositional material is perhaps the most relevant aspect to address in improvisation--the best starting point & the best focal point to bear in mind at any stage. Every other approach is an adjunct to that.

I can see that chordscale approaches may not be entirely relevant to learning to play classic bop. But what if I want to play like Herbie Hancock (post fusion), or Wayne Shorter (pre- or post-fusion), or Micheal Brecker, or, anyone on the current tip of jazz development? Are chordscale approaches relevent then?

Ed,

I think that all or most of the guys you cite have indeed been well-versed in CST, but they also have a deep understanding of the composition from which their statements derive meaning. I am not saying that such scales are worthless by any means, only that their importance is over-estimated in jazz pedagogy to the point of being primary.

With regard to modern tunes with chord successions, I think its high time jazz developed beyond 19th century harmony; but I see no relevance whatsoever in the traditional developmental processes needed in improvising on such material. While the harmony is different, lines based on the melody, guide tone line & root progression are just as relevant over any harmonic style; & lines developed in this manner will work over virtually any harmonic style. Miles Davis, for example, imitated Maurice Ravel's Concerto for the Left Hand to create a kind of Impressionist Jazz for over 13 years. In the process, however, he never forgot to develop the exposition line & the composition's other salient characteristics in his improvisations (see, for example, Filles de Kilimanjaro).

I have taught clinics--in Sweden, for example--in which a small group was struggling with a Wayne Shorter tune. Once I reduced and simplified the melody, gtl, & rp, they suddenly got it: their comprehension of the piece's essential elements & intent was clear in the very next run-through.

For me, the question is about priorities. Of course, all of these approaches are useful. Nonetheless, it is up to each of us to decide what the priorities are, since you can't count on more than one lifetime to master what you need, & to do what you want to do. One could, for example, spend a lifetime just mastering solfeggio, so it is up to us to decide what skills we need most, & how much focus needs to be put on each of them. As a jazz practitioner, I think that CST miss-uses its bully pulpit, miss-leading its students about priorities in the process.

Btw, CST was well in place long before PM attended Berklee (he was a student there, studying with Mick Goodrick, when I taught there in another lifetime). While John LaPorta developed a Pentatonic method early on (c. 1950?), CST was established when Jerry Coker systematized it in his book, Improvising Jazz a decade later. More important, however, is that he was the 1st full-time college jazz educator. He wrote his curriculum based upon CST. He told me that he did this because the classical music administrators otherwise wouldn't have accepted traditional jazz educational concepts--or as a valid subject at all. Jazz is only in higher education because of enrollment: Students demand jazz courses.

Best,
Ed

[engelbach]

Ed,

I think that all or most of the guys you cite have indeed been well-versed in CST, but they also have a deep understanding of the composition from which their statements derive meaning. I am not saying that such scales are worthless by any means, only that their importance is over-estimated in jazz pedagogy to the point of being primary.

With regard to modern tunes with chord progressions, I think its high time jazz developed beyond 19th century harmony; but I see no relevance whatsoever in the traditional developmental processes needed in improvising on such material. While the harmony is different, lines based on the melody, guide tone line & root progression are just as relevant over any harmonic style; & lines developed in this manner will work over virtually any harmonic style. Miles Davis, for example, imitated Maurice Ravel's Concerto for the Left Hand to create a kind of Impressionist Jazz for over 13 years. In the process, however, he never forgot to develop the exposition line & the composition's other salient characteristics in his improvisations (see, for example, Filles de Kilimanjaro).

I have taught clinics--in Sweden, for example--in which a small group was struggling with a Wayne Shorter tune. Once I reduced and simplified the melody, gtl, & rp, they suddenly got it: their comprehension of the piece's essential elements & intent was clear in the very next run-through.

For me, the question is about priorities. Of course, all of these approaches are useful. Nonetheless, it is up to each of us to decide what the priorities are, since you can't count on more than one lifetime to master what you need, & to do what you want to do. One could, for example, spend a lifetime just mastering solfeggio, so it up to us to decide what skills we need most, & how much focus needs to be put on each of them. As a jazz practitioner, I think that CST miss-uses its bully pulpit, miss-leading its students about priorities in the process.

Btw, CST was well in place long before PM attended Berklee (he was a student there, studying with Mick Goodrick, when I taught there in another lifetime). While John LaPorta developed a Pentatonic method early on (c. 1940), CST was established when Jerry Coker systematized it in his book, Improvising Jazz. More important, however, is that he was the 1st full-time college jazz educator. He wrote his curriculum based upon CST. He told me that he did this because the classical music administrators otherwise wouldn't have accepted traditional jazz educational concepts--or as a valid subject at all. Jazz is only in higher education because of enrollment: Students demand jazz courses.

Best,
Ed

Ed,

I think that in this thread you've explained your approach most clearly of all your posts. I find myself agreeing with more of your points, because I think I unconsciously practice some of them.

I learned to play chords (I forget how or when I picked up the treble clef) by counting up from the root note. Not by scale tones, but by chromatic intervals. I didn't know scales, and even today I rarely think about them as such.

So when I started to improvise, it was purely on the melody plus learning what kind of tension to expect from each note against a given chord.

From all you've said, I'm beginning to feel that it was my non-traditional education that freed me from the trap of scaler improvisation, simply because I was never taught how to do it.

If I've defended scale playing, it's because I've always envied pianists with the facility to run lightning-fast scales; I felt that the ability to do so was important.

But I'm beginning to understand why Bill Evans, who early on used to show off his scaler virtuosity, abandoned doing so as he matured. And why Mal Waldron, who never had either the facility or the interest, has always been one of my favorite pianists.

I'm shocked that there may be young musicians who don't realize that the purpose of improvisation is to tell a story; their own story, to be sure, but one based on the tune they're playing. This is so fundamental that it's hard to believe it could be missed.

Jer

[JonR]

...you can't count on more than one lifetime to master what you needDamn, I was kind of banking on that, shucks. :(
Guess I'd better get down to some work...

[JonR]

I learned to play chords (I forget how or when I picked up the treble clef) by counting up from the root note. Not by scale tones, but by chromatic intervals. I didn't know scales, and even today I rarely think about them as such.

So when I started to improvise, it was purely on the melody plus learning what kind of tension to expect from each note against a given chord.

From all you've said, I'm beginning to feel that it was my non-traditional education that freed me from the trap of scaler improvisation, simply because I was never taught how to do it.
Also my experience, exactly - except on guitar. I worked from melody and chords, never learned scale patterns, and don't remember ever finding the idea of improvisation difficult or confusing. (Technical limitations aside of course... :rolleyes: )

[guitarjazz]

or are we saying chordscales is one thing?

Depends on how you tilt your head. A C major pentatonic scale(cdega) viewed vertically would be a voicing for a C6/9 chord..for instance.

[engelbach]

Also my experience, exactly - except on guitar. I worked from melody and chords, never learned scale patterns, and don't remember ever finding the idea of improvisation difficult or confusing. (Technical limitations aside of course... :rolleyes: )

Thanks for the response.

Ah, yes, that mile-high technical barrier. I never wanted to practice; I just wanted to PLAY.

[JonR]

Depends on how you tilt your head.So that's how you get inversions...

[EdByrne]

The alternative is people who couldn't hit a change if their life depended on it, and at a slightly later phase of development, players who can solo well but never generate any traction because they can't get the sound of jazz minor modes into their ears. I don't really get why the sins of beginning chord-scale players get brought out, without mentioning the sins of by-ear players at comparable levels of development. It's not like by-ear players don't go through a long period of sounding less than entirely perfect as well.

The discussion of tunes like Naima, and, Maiden Voyage makes me wonder about something. I don't know the answer to this, but i think it's an interesting question, and I'm wondering whether somebody can shed light on this.

They question, directly put, is whether chord-scale approaches are more relevant to post-bop jazz. I think they are.

I see two great divides in jazz (although I'm sure there are more that lie outside of the range of my listening): the swing/bop divide; and the bop/post-bop divide. No need to elaborate on the swing/bop divide. The bop/post-bop divide is less often discussed.

There may be a name for what happens to jazz after bop that has better currency, but I can't think of what it is. "Post-bop" seems inadequate to cover what happens in the 50 years of jazz that happened after the 10 years of the classic bop era. And I more than suspect that the term "post-bop" has been coopted to refer to something else.

So let me describe it as I see it. And maybe somebody can provide a better name for it. What I see happening is an increasing move toward tunes with non-functional harmony that arcs from Kind of Blue and modal approaches, via quartal harmony (McCoy Tyner, for example, although Tyner is not the first or last word in this area), through overtly and consciously non-functional harmony in 70s fusion (Hancock, Metheny, Chick Korea, John McLaughlin, Weather Report and many others), to the current tip of the jazz tradition (ok, one of the tips, the one that most interests me) in which the non-functional harmony of the 70s fusion ear is re-united with traditional accoustic instrumentation (stand-up bass in preference to electric bass, piano in preference to synths and electric pianos, &c), the tip in which non-functional harmony of the 70s is embraced and extended considerably. Simplified greatly, I admit. But that's the arc of jazz to which I wish to refer: the arc in which harmonic approaches to jazz become much more adventurous, and the arc in which the harmonic innovations of classic bop are mere baby steps.

So with that clarification in mind, let me put the question again. The great defense of the non-chordscale approach has been that "that's not how the great players learned to play jazz". I don't doubt that's true of players who came into jazz in the swing and bop eras, although I've never quite understood how Slonimsky fits into that. My reading is that -- although players of that era didn't learn that way -- they are using Slonimsky to develop a chordscale-like approach that becomes important in post-bop. The question I'd like to ask is whether it's true of players in the post-bop era. Did Herbie Hancock learn jazz within a chordscale framework? What about Metheny (who -- I believe -- is a major player in laying the foundations of the Berkely chordscale approach).

I can see that chordscale approaches may not be entirely relevant to learning to play classic bop. But what if I want to play like Herbie Hancock (post fusion), or Wayne Shorter (pre- or post-fusion), or Micheal Brecker, or, anyone on the current tip of jazz development? Are chordscale approaches relevent then?

Ed,

I think that in this thread you've explained your approach most clearly of all your posts. I find myself agreeing with more of your points, because I think I unconsciously practice some of them.

I learned to play chords (I forget how or when I picked up the treble clef) by counting up from the root note. Not by scale tones, but by chromatic intervals. I didn't know scales, and even today I rarely think about them as such.

So when I started to improvise, it was purely on the melody plus learning what kind of tension to expect from each note against a given chord.

From all you've said, I'm beginning to feel that it was my non-traditional education that freed me from the trap of scaler improvisation, simply because I was never taught how to do it.

If I've defended scale playing, it's because I've always envied pianists with the facility to run lightning-fast scales; I felt that the ability to do so was important.

But I'm beginning to understand why Bill Evans, who early on used to show off his scaler virtuosity, abandoned doing so as he matured. And why Mal Waldron, who never had either the facility or the interest, has always been one of my favorite pianists.

I'm shocked that there may be young musicians who don't realize that the purpose of improvisation is to tell a story; their own story, to be sure, but one based on the tune they're playing. This is so fundamental that it's hard to believe it could be missed.

Jer

Thanks for the review, Jer. (Maybe I'll keep this one.)

The topic keeps coming up from different directions, though, which might explain some of the differences in my past arguments to this end. As you just stated, a little common sense has to be born in mind: What's the story? How best can I re-tell it? How do I begin to prepare? Prepare what? What do I want to impart to my audience (chops, superiority, or feelings)?

[cillit bang]

I practice to get the facility to be able to play the bits of tunes
that come into my head on occasion.

(AND to have stuff to rely on when the inspiration doesn't come of course)

I'm agreeing with Ed here ...........
I made a big jump in getting this dowm when I got off the chord/scale approach - too many notes man !
and onto lines that hit the chords tones on the correct beat.

Arpegios are closer to what I'm on about but really it is tunes

ie play a couple or three chords, sing a line , play that line etc

Also learn lots of tunes , they teach you too

That and occasionally rip off a nice line from a player you dig
(I think its called transcribing)

Mind you I'm not a very flash player

Jem

[edrowland]

do you mean a different scale per chord [ D Dorian, G Altered C Melodic minor for instance?)

...

or are we saying chordscales is one thing?

Yes. Chords is scales. At least within my current way of thinking when I play. A chord symbol (with sufficient added extensions) corresponds exactly to a scale. And that is, in fact, the way I'm currently playing. e.g. Cmaj7#11 *is* lydian (it takes lydian scale, and no other). CMaj13 *is* C-ionian. C7#11 *is* lydian dominant. Dm7b5b9 *is* locrian. Dm7b5Natural9 is the mm equivalent. C7(#5#9) or Calt *is* Altered scale, and so on. Yes, some chord symbols (and the scales that go with them) are ambiguous. But my current thinking process over the fretboard is that chords and the alterations that the chord will take, and the scale which gets played over them is one and the same from a mental labelling point of view. (Mode names are unnatural for me; internally I label modes with a corresponding chord name). It also means that the scale I play changes when the chord changes. Which is a liability. Although I do tend to collapse ii-Vs into one mental unit.

Pluses: I always know what degree of the scale I'm playing relative to the chord of the moment, and I can hear it before I play it. Even with common-scale approaches, I think you have to address this issue somehow. Minuses: Ddorian doesn't have anything in common with C Ionian (strange but true). I learned 'em separately (very deliberately), and I don't currently have any internalized process to equate the two.

But, I am currently on a program to re-learn scales in a way that encourages common-scale thinking. Very early on in that process. But it's a concious and protracted effort to address a weakness in my harmonic thinking, namely, a complete lack of common-scale thinking when I play, which -- I currently believe -- impedes certain kinds of by-ear playing.

Current thinking: if being able to do either is good, then being able to do both must be even better. An efficient way to learn? Certainly not. But I'm at a stage where anything I can do to improve my fluency with my instrument is worthwhile. And I have no doubt that this will be.

No, I do not believe that this is a way of thinking that had any kind of currency in the bop era.

[edrowland]

and re: naima...

S'funny that particular tune should come up in this thread again and again. An interesting learning experience for me, with a great teacher. I was convinced this was a tune that used non-functional harmony. So, to prove a point, my teacher broke it down completely and sensibly from top-to-bottom in one pass, in conventional harmonic terms without even breathing hard once. "Nothing that Debussy wouldn't have been completely comfortable with", according to him. :-/ So much to learn. So little time.

[OnyaBirri]

If you have a natural inclination toward melodic playing, knowing some additional scale/chord relationships will only give you more melodic ideas to work with. Just because some of these university kids sound like they're running scales over changes does not mean that a more sensitive player can't gain from practicing in this manner.

[guitarjazz]

S'funny that particular tune should come up in this thread again and again. An interesting learning experience for me, with a great teacher. I was convinced this was a tune that used non-functional harmony. So, to prove a point, my teacher broke it down completely and sensibly from top-to-bottom in one pass, in conventional harmonic terms without even breathing hard once. "Nothing that Debussy wouldn't have been completely comfortable with", according to him. :-/ So much to learn. So little time.
I had a similar experience. Freshman year in college I wrote a piece that was basically a rip-off of Follow Your Heart but in 4/4. Guess I neutered the most interesting thing about it. I wrote a paper about the ‘new’ fourth chords that jazz guys had invented. Fortunately my teacher set me straight. That’s was I get for growing up around corn fields and spending my senior year of high school writing harmony for four-part chorales. Those fourth chords seemed so sophisticated!

[Phat Boi]

If you have a natural inclination toward melodic playing, knowing some additional scale/chord relationships will only give you more melodic ideas to work with. Just because some of these university kids sound like they're running scales over changes does not mean that a more sensitive player can't gain from practicing in this manner.

Exactly. Composers use chord scale relationships all the time to develop motifs. If you are well versed in chord scales then it is easier to develop ideas over changes.

On another topic.

I love it when the haters say that "Oh all berklee cats sound the same"... No we don't. That is clearly a very ignorant statement. There is no "Berklee sound." No one tells you to sound a certain way. Everyone at Berklee learns chord scales because you have to in order to understand music. What you do with it is your responsibility as an improviser.

[Vic J]

Boston has the Best Jazz Teachers in the USA

[OnyaBirri]

Boston has the Best Jazz Teachers in the USA

No, he actually lives on the North Shore. Or rather "Nahth Shah."

[Vic J]

Charlie Banacos!!!!!!!

[Phat Boi]

Boston has the Best Jazz Teachers in the USA

Represent.

[thedwork]

...I love it when the haters say that "Oh all berklee cats sound the same"... No we don't.... There is no "Berklee sound."


oh yeah? i hate it when people say shit like that. it's ignorant and self-serving. it's so pervasive and loud that i stopped being amused by it many years ago.

it's like Fox News. it was kind of funny at first, but then then it starts shaping public opinion and pretty soon it's warping the culture's sense of "truthiness." yeah, i know. i'm crazy like that...


but about the "berklee sound" type of comments - here's an example of how ridiculous (and transparent) those kinds of comments are. i remember a long time ago (maybe 10 years...) i was at a jam session, don't remember where. we were all just throwing tunes out there to play. i called out "Darn That Dream" to see if people wanted to play that one. somebody said, "Oh yeah, a Berklee tune. Ok..." i thought to myself, "hmmm... that's a Berklee tune?" so the night moves along, couple hours go by, and we're having fun playing and drinkin'. i call "Inner Urge" to see if people wanna play that. "Oh yeah, another Berklee tune," somebody says. at that point it was obvious that these guys thought it made them look good to put Berklee down. that's really all it is. it's just pathetic.

[HaVIC5]

The whole chord/scale system coming out of Berklee is vastly, vastly misinterpreted by outsiders, and its misinterpeted by many people who go to Berklee also. The entire point of the chord/scale system isn't to give a method of improvisation, its to give a method of melody/harmony analysis. I go there right now, and I've never been once been told that over a particular chord you have to improvise by running a particular scale. All my bass teachers thusfar have been in favor of the musically superior methods of motivic development in and around chord tones and tensions.

The entire point of a chord scale is to define what exactly sounds "in" with a particular chord and what sounds "out" based upon COMMON PRACTICE. While people sometimes might play overly hip shit like a major third over a minor 7 chord, or things like that, the fact is a major 3rd doesn't traditionally sound "in" with the sound of a minor 7 chord, and isn't within any chord scale that might be traditionally associated with a minor 7 chord within functional harmony. In that way, chord scales represent a valuable compositional tool when composing harmonies and melodies WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FUNCTIONAL HARMONY. The tones of the chord scale are ranked on a specific heirarchy including chord tones (meat and potatoes of the chord), tensions (possible extended dissonances that don't altered the function and basic sound of the chord) and harmonic "avoid notes", which are notes not going to be played in the harmony, but can be played in passing and maintain the FUNCTIONAL chord sound (as opposed to chromatics), for example the 4th degree of a C Ionian chordscale defines its particular sound for a Cmaj7 to differntiate it from a lydian sound, even if its not part of the explicit harmony. Every note in a particular chord scale is not created equal, and we're not taught that they are I'm taking an arranging class right now called "Chord Scale Arranging", where we're learning about using non-mechanical based voicings (clusters, upper structure triads, etc) based upon the contexts of specific chord scales defined with a specific chord function, and how to take this heirarchy properly into account. Chord/scales can and are used in a very musical way, but its a very common misconception that many people have that chord/scale equivilency means always play one scale over one chord without any regard to anything else.

[Phat Boi]

oh yeah? i hate it when people say shit like that. it's ignorant and self-serving. it's so pervasive and loud that i stopped being amused by it many years ago.

it's like Fox News. it was kind of funny at first, but then then it starts shaping public opinion and pretty soon it's warping the culture's sense of "truthiness." yeah, i know. i'm crazy like that...


but about the "berklee sound" type of comments - here's an example of how ridiculous (and transparent) those kinds of comments are. i remember a long time ago (maybe 10 years...) i was at a jam session, don't remember where. we were all just throwing tunes out there to play. i called out "Darn That Dream" to see if people wanted to play that one. somebody said, "Oh yeah, a Berklee tune. Ok..." i thought to myself, "hmmm... that's a Berklee tune?" so the night moves along, couple hours go by, and we're having fun playing and drinkin'. i call "Inner Urge" to see if people wanna play that. "Oh yeah, another Berklee tune," somebody says. at that point it was obvious that these guys thought it made them look good to put Berklee down. that's really all it is. it's just pathetic.

That's hilarious. I guess I could see Blue Bossa though! Just kidding. In all seriousness I hate people that say that kinda of crap. There are plenty of people who copy Wes, Rosenwinkel, Scofield, Benson etc etc at Berklee. Even they don't all sound the same. Plus there are so many cats from all over the world here that it makes it seem even more ridiculous.

[fellowtheorist]

i feel compelled to comment on the part of this thread yesterday where edrowland stated that D-7b5b9 is locrian. i may be mistaken, for i am gleeful to admit that i certainly have been in the past, but as far as i understand, -7 shapes, altered, as in the above mentioned, or unaltered, as in dorian, generally have a natural 6th. locrian clearly does not. for the sake of persisting in an unreasonably pedantic manor, i will go on to say that D-7b5b9 is mode ii of C harmonic minor(C minor/major seven flat thirteen, man). you dig? just kidding. i have no idea what i'm talking about.
carry on.

[thedwork]

i feel compelled to comment on the part of this thread yesterday where edrowland stated that D-7b5b9 is locrian. i may be mistaken, for i am gleeful to admit that i certainly have been in the past, but as far as i understand, -7 shapes, altered, as in the above mentioned, or unaltered, as in dorian, generally have a natural 6th. locrian clearly does not. for the sake of persisting in an unreasonably pedantic manor, i will go on to say that D-7b5b9 is mode ii of C harmonic minor(C minor/major seven flat thirteen, man). you dig? just kidding. i have no idea what i'm talking about.
carry on.


:confused2

[EdByrne]

i feel compelled to comment on the part of this thread yesterday where edrowland stated that D-7b5b9 is locrian. i may be mistaken, for i am gleeful to admit that i certainly have been in the past, but as far as i understand, -7 shapes, altered, as in the above mentioned, or unaltered, as in dorian, generally have a natural 6th. locrian clearly does not. for the sake of persisting in an unreasonably pedantic manor, i will go on to say that D-7b5b9 is mode ii of C harmonic minor(C minor/major seven flat thirteen, man). you dig? just kidding. i have no idea what i'm talking about.
carry on.

D-7b5b9 could be either ii-7b5b9 in C Harmonic Minor or C Pure Minor, the latter of which is the one that is most commonly prescribed. For the brighter version, Horace Silver & others use Dm9-5, suggesting the 6th mode of the F Melodic Minor (the key of iv). In general, however, consider the chord in the context of the key of the progression in which it resides when searching for the most inside scalar possibilities.

[Bill Robinson]

To me, you have to play rhythmically and have rhythmic phrasing, and that transforms whatever scale notes you choose into a 'riff' or melody, or melodic fragment. The Scott Henderson DVD is good in this area. Then I wonder about Bach's straight runs of notes and then Pat Martino's runs of eighth notes, and how they get away with it. Sequences, changes of direction...the Baroque was a certain aesthetic that was all filligree; Vivaldi sounds like wallpaper sometimes. Some say no rubato or dynamics, like a harpsichord or organ, and let the notes do the speaking. Is it only because it's carefully planned counterpoint that Bach gets away with scalar runs, or is it that he's mixing it up? Maybe the question is one of rhythm. Am I on track here?

[alijamieson]

there was someone [maybe Horace Silver? i can't remeber] who says you can play anything and make it sound good as long as you play it with conviction

re long runs of notes... i spose if they're executed properly, swing and are contextually correct then it'll sound good, so long as you don't sound like a clinician.

meh

[staffanwo]

To me, you have to play rhythmically and have rhythmic phrasing, and that transforms whatever scale notes you choose into a 'riff' or melody, or melodic fragment. The Scott Henderson DVD is good in this area. Then I wonder about Bach's straight runs of notes and then Pat Martino's runs of eighth notes, and how they get away with it. Sequences, changes of direction...the Baroque was a certain aesthetic that was all filligree; Vivaldi sounds like wallpaper sometimes. Some say no rubato or dynamics, like a harpsichord or organ, and let the notes do the speaking. Is it only because it's carefully planned counterpoint that Bach gets away with scalar runs, or is it that he's mixing it up? Maybe the question is one of rhythm. Am I on track here?


Pat Martino can get away with the long strings of eight notes because he makes great use of dynamics. His lines breathe because of the constant crescendo/diminuendo motion, which is often following the pitch. Also, contrary to popular belief, Pat Martino doesn't pick every note. There are usually one or two slurs for every eight notes. It's subtle, so you might miss it, but playing a Pat Martino line without the dynamics and picking every note will sound stiff and boring. The "non-picked" note is often the last one before moving to another string, which gives you more time for the pick to move to the next string. The slurs are mostly from an upbeat to a downbeat. The rhythmic drive comes from picking down on the downbeats, and up on the upbeats, even when slurring a note.

[Bill Robinson]

Pat Martino can get away with the long strings of eight notes because he makes great use of dynamics. His lines breathe because of the constant crescendo/diminuendo motion, which is often following the pitch.
staffanwo, what you say is true, but after thinking further on this subject (it's been a while), I came to this conclusion, which satisfied me: melodic contour.

When rhythm is steady and predictable, the ear will focus on that which exhibits variety; in this case, the harmonic dimension.

The most important aspect of Martino's lines is the way they are constructed: where the high & low points are (which often goes hand in hand with dynamics, as you said), and where the changes of direction occur. This is how he avoids monotony in strings of eighth notes.

[engelbach]

To me, you have to play rhythmically and have rhythmic phrasing, and that transforms whatever scale notes you choose into a 'riff' or melody, or melodic fragment. Then I wonder about Bach's straight runs of notes.... the Baroque was a certain aesthetic that was all filligree; Vivaldi sounds like wallpaper sometimes.... Is it only because it's carefully planned counterpoint that Bach gets away with scalar runs, or is it that he's mixing it up?

Bill,

Your first point is right on track. But I don't hear "straight runs of notes" in Bach. His motives often contains scale fragments, but they are not filler or embellishment but are, in fact, the melody.

Ditto with Vivaldi. What makes this guy boring for me at times is not scales but his harmonic monotony: much of his music is just I-V-I.

Cheers,
Jer

[staffanwo]

Both Bach and Pat Martino does a lot of eight notes. Maybe it's because they both played/plays instruments with limited sustain, like the harpsichord and the archtop guitar. Bach played a lot of organ, but I guess that most of his time he was noodling in his home on some kind of harpsichord or clavichord, with very limited sustain. And you don't play "Theme from Deer Hunter" on the banjo. The banjo invites you to play an even stream of fast notes, because of its short sustain. The jazz guitar, especially the big archtop with heavy, flatwound strings, produces very short notes compared to a tenor sax.

The good thing is that the percussive and rhythmic effect, the drive, is great on these instruments. The pizzicato double bass is another instrument with very little sustain, therefore in jazz it plays an even stream of quarter notes most of the time.

The nice thing with Pat Martino is that he is a guitar player. He doesn't sound like he would rather play the tenor sax. He plays very idiomatic guitar, and his lines would probably sound funny or bland if played on a trumpet or a saxophone.

[engelbach]

Both Bach and Pat Martino does a lot of eight notes. Maybe it's because they both played/plays instruments with limited sustain, like the harpsichord and the archtop guitar. Bach played a lot of organ, but I guess that most of his time he was noodling in his home on some kind of harpsichord or clavichord, with very limited sustain.

It's instructive that Bach was previously introduced into this thread. I don't think that the presence of lines of eighth notes in Bach's music is all that relevant to such lines in modern jazz, as the motivation behind the two is different.

The end of the Baroque era saw the decline of contrapuntal, horizontal music and the rapid growth of vertical music — melody played over sustained harmony. Because of the limited sustain of old keyboards, classical era composers such as Haydn and Mozart had to use broken and arpeggiated chords — the Alberti Bass — to fill in the harmony.

Bach, however, wrote for the keyboard contrapuntally, in the style pf the Baroque (which in his day was already considered old-fashioned). So although occasionally you find in his pieces a melody over a harmonic background (vertical construction), most often he writes linearly (horizontal construction).

Therefore, Bach's linear counterpoint was not directly related to the sustain limitations of the keyboard. His orchestral and organ music, played on instruments with infinite sustain, is not essentially different in style or texture from his keyboard music. It was not about sustaining the harmony, but about constructing horizontal lines of counterpoint.

In fact, many pieces by Bach have indeterminate instrumentation. So, for example, one can find the same music being used for both a keyboard concerto and a violin concerto!

This contrasts with the practice of a classical composer like Mozart, who wrote for sustainable instruments in a completely different way from his writing for keyboard. There's no Alberti Bass in Mozart's orchestra.

The growth of linear jazz is not, however, solely because of the lack of sustainability of the instruments, but at least equally because of a stylistic evolution — or revolution, if you prefer. Bebop developed long lines of eighth notes on all instruments, horns and keyboards included.

Stride piano was the equivalent of the Alberti Bass. But with the advent of bop, and the example of pioneers like Charlie Christian et al, keyboard and guitar players sought to imitate horn lines, and the piano left hand became more free rhythmically. This, to me, has little to do with lack of sustainability. But neither does it have anything to do with Bach, as the motivation for modern scaler playing is not contrapuntal.

[staffanwo]

Good points, Engelbach. I didn't mean that sustain was the whole answer, just part of it. Here's another theory: Bach was known as one of the best improvisors of his time; they actually had cutting contests! And when improvising, you can't be totally creative in all the aspects of music: melody, harmony and rhythm. Usually you simplify the rhythm, in order to concentrate on melody and harmony. That's why jazz musicians don't play 37-bar songs in 11/8, we need the predictability of 4/4 in bulks of 8 or 12 bars, unless we play modal, harmonically static music; then it's OK to play in 7/8.

Bach likes to fill up the spaces, even when writing in a non-polyphonic style. The preludes of The Well-tempered Clavier are good examples of that. Some of them are slow chord-progressions which are arpeggiated and embellished with some leading- and passing-notes. And it swings like crazy! I wonder if dance has something to do with it. I don't know if they actually danced to Bach's Gavottes, Gigues and Sarabandes at that time? Somebody please enlighten me on that subject.

Back to jazz: Long lines of eight-notes can be either extremely boring or extremely exciting. It can put you to sleep or make you sit on the edge of your chair. Pat Martino was sort of a prodigy, playing the Harlem organ bars while still in his teens. People were drinking and talking, maybe not paying attention to the bandstand. Playing long lines of 8th- or 16th-notes is an attention grabber. You don't stop; conversation stops. You loop three notes (in Martino's case, probably b5, 5 & b7); the crowd cheers. You go on for a whole chorus; the crowd goes wild. You manage to elegantly get out of the three-note loop with a long line; mission accomplished!

To sound like Pat Martino, it's a good idea to play very short notes. If you don't leave much space between phrases, you need to have some space between the single notes instead. Think of an eight-note as a 16th-note with a 16th-note rest. And Martino actually has pretty low action on his guitars, I have from a student of his.

J.S. Bach and Pat Martino have one thing in common: People either love it or hate it. Lots of people don't like Bach at all, thinking it sounds like exercises and etudes; same thing with Martino.

[EdByrne]

In addition to Jer's astute remarks, it should be pointed out that all 8th notes are not equal. Conjunct (step-wise) motion can be transformed from motor rhythm to actual rhythms with the introduction of accents & articulations, which in jazz constitute a unique language. More important, however, is when disjunct motion is employed (leaps), true rhythm is produced--through the written appearance of mere motor rhythm. On paper, one can often mistake a Parker line that is notated as 8th notes as merely that, while something rather different is taking place in reality. Jazz artists are all over the spectrum with regard to the extent to which each deals with this. For my part, I approach my improvisations as drum solos with specific pitches--even on a ballad; & I am profoundly affected in the process by the rhythmic dialect of the drums in any style at hand.

[Vic J]

That's a brilliant post Ed...I am going to check that out. Music, for thousands of years did not contain any harmony, right?:shrug:

[EdByrne]

That's a brilliant post Ed...I am going to check that out. Music, for thousands of years did not contain any harmony, right?:shrug:

Thanks, Vic. There is some talk elsewhere in this forum about Schenker, whose work with reduction had a profound influence on me. It inspired me to further apply the process to rhythm, & I find that to be equally revealing.

[Bob Budny]

For my part, I approach my improvisations as drum solos with specific pitches--even on a ballad; & I am profoundly affected in the process by the rhythmic dialect of the drums in any style at hand.

As a drummer it's great to hear a 'horn' player articulate that notion. My fascination as a drummer, 2d to creating a sense of motion, is articulating the melodic and harmonic structure of the music without precise pitches. The tune should be clearly there, regardless of how in or out the rhythms.

A request for advice, as a drummer learning bass, what percentage of my time should be spent on tunes vs. practicing scales, patterns, etc.?

[EdByrne]

A request for advice, as a drummer learning bass, what percentage of my time should be spent on tunes vs. practicing scales, patterns, etc.?
I suppose that if your purpose is to be able to function in a group playing tunes, working on tunes is the priority. But it would seem that as a relative novice on a different (new to you) instrument, some basic technical work would be necessary to mitigate (otherwise) constant fingering & other impediments. It depends on level, & your goals.

It has been pointed out that a recent interview with TS Monk revealed his observation that M Sr. never (in TS' time with him) practiced anything but his story (tunes). Since his goal seems to have been to tell his own stories, he was probably right on. Ultimately it has to be a priority for the jazz artist, I think.

These days I mostly do that too, but I also have a long-term goal of gradually increasing my vocabulary as well. If public speaking were my passion (in the Greek orator sense), I'd probably make it an ongoing goal to learn the entire dictionary & experiment with ways in which to incorporate all those words into personal usage for increased variety & interest. I don't think it essential, though.

I do both; but whatever I practice with regard to vocabulary, I ultimately apply directly to "pseudo-improvisations" on my intended performance material--which is essential.

For me, it's a bit like "render to Caesar . . . & to . . ." Then again I play trombone.

[Bill Robinson]

Bach, however, wrote for the keyboard contrapuntally, in the style pf the Baroque (which in his day was already considered old-fashioned). So although occasionally you find in his pieces a melody over a harmonic background (vertical construction), most often he writes linearly (horizontal construction).
Jerry makes some very enlightening observations. Although the fugues Bach wrote are probably the most horizontal, when I mentioned Bach in a jazz connection I was thinking of the Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G major, the III (allegro) movement, where it's in 3/4 (I think) and there are 6 eighth notes per measure, and the chords change every measure, similar to a jazz tune.
There, the variety seems to depend on what chord tone the line starts on, and that's where all the interest lies.

[Bob Budny]

But it would seem that as a relative novice on a different (new to you) instrument, some basic technical work would be necessary to mitigate (otherwise) constant fingering & other impediments. It depends on level, & your goals.


Technical facility seems to be a primary point of scale study. That and playing on a scale, 'raga' style to discover the melodic gestures that emerge from the 'mood' of the scale (or PC). If a scale can be used over a significant portion of a tune, this may be where something like e.g., the "Lydian" approach may have more musical validity. Relevant to this thread, pursuing the scale-chord idea (unless the chord goes on for quite awhile) smacks of wheel-spinning when it comes to blowing on a tune. On the other hand, playing the key centers, melody, RM, GT, and RP (as indicated in your LIM) translate immediately into musical results, which don't just sound like etudes, filler, and flash.

Thanks for the response, Ed.

[EdByrne]

Technical facility seems to be a primary point of scale study. That and playing on a scale, 'raga' style to discover the melodic gestures that emerge from the 'mood' of the scale (or PC). If a scale can be used over a significant portion of a tune, this may be where something like e.g., the "Lydian" approach may have more musical validity. Relevant to this thread, pursuing the scale-chord idea (unless the chord goes on for quite awhile) smacks of wheel-spinning when it comes to blowing on a tune. On the other hand, playing the key centers, melody, RM, GT, and RP (as indicated in your LIM) translate immediately into musical results, which don't just sound like etudes, filler, and flash.

Thanks for the response, Ed.

Bob,

My pleasure. This touches on what I left out above: I'm a big fan of "killing two birds with one stone" whenever possible, so most technical work that I do is combined with learning vocabulary (I could get specific if you like). After getting a good start with working on some specific piece of that, I'll improvise on it--eventually without any restrictions whatsoever, which of course causes all sorts of wonderful permutations I couldn't have conceived of, since the basic pc is only a starting point in actual practice.

You & others have demonstrated how such basics of vocabulary (starting points) can be arrived at in very different ways. But, as we will take a Major scale (or Lydian) & improvise it, all sorts of other notes & relationships will coalesce onto that in the process; and we do it to every sort of pc or phrase as well.

We're all doing the same things--as you know.

Ed

[staffanwo]

Even today, lots of music doesn't contain harmony; we're 6.6 billion people in this world. Indian music is melodically and rhythmically complex, but forget about harmony. Masters of indian classical music even has to decide on which key they will play in for the rest of their lives, so they can't sit in with each other, unless they happen to be in the same key! Arabic music is pretty much in unison, and asian music doesn't really have any bass or low frequencies, it's mostly from middle C and up. We're all different!

For lots of people in the western world, harmony doesn't really mean anything. They are harmonically colorblind. When I get goosebumps from listening to Bill Evans' inner voicings, all they hear is "lounge music and cocktail party tinkling". These people might be artists or otherwise esthetically aware persons, even jazz lovers (as long as we're talking about modal or free jazz). They just don't hear it. Chords doesn't speak to them.

[Bob Budny]

...so most technical work that I do is combined with learning vocabulary (I could get specific if you like)....
Ed

Por Favor!

[Bob Budny]

Even today, lots of music doesn't contain harmony; we're 6.6 billion people in this world. Indian music is melodically and rhythmically complex, but forget about harmony. Masters of indian classical music even has to decide on which key they will play in for the rest of their lives, so they can't sit in with each other, unless they happen to be in the same key! Arabic music is pretty much in unison, and asian music doesn't really have any bass or low frequencies, it's mostly from middle C and up. We're all different!

For lots of people in the western world, harmony doesn't really mean anything. They are harmonically colorblind. When I get goosebumps from listening to Bill Evans' inner voicings, all they hear is "lounge music and cocktail party tinkling". These people might be artists or otherwise esthetically aware persons, even jazz lovers (as long as we're talking about modal or free jazz). They just don't hear it. Chords doesn't speak to them.
And there's is much to be learned from thousand year traditions of 'non-harmonic' music and how much can be said in those traditions.
Regarding: We're all different! (I may have told this story before) I escorted one of Japan's most renown Koto players during an appearance in the area. I asked her what she listened to. Mahler, Bruckner was the reply. There is something very profound in that story (not that I know what exactly).

[pele_trane]

For many years of struggling with this music, I was one of those people who was chained to the idea of "Ok, I'm going to solo over a CM7, now I have to play notes from the C Major 7th scale"...

God what a crappy way of thinking I was plagued with!!! I feel so, so, much better now that I don't think and play that way. To be sure, music can be played many different ways, but when it really comes down to it, it is, ultimately, heard and played LINEARLY. Agonizing over what to play over that CM7?? Guess what? That chord was done and dusted 10 measures ago..! Now what??

A line is played and heard through the harmony and is not musically contingent and owe its very existence to each and every chord that manages to pass by..Art Tatum said it best: "all notes are valid; it depends on what you play next".

An even better quality of playing is the rhythmic quality of a line: I think one can play something, even a very simple thing, and it can be very effective (i.e., musical, pleasant sounding, et al),provided it is played with a rhythmic elan, sincerity, and syncopation.

To wit: pick any iim7-v7 chord sequence--in the hands of (to use modern terminology) a "singer-songwriter", it can sound hackneyed, banal and drive one utterly batty in contemplating its sheer stupidity. Now, take that exact same harmonic pattern, but give it to a flamenco guitarist, who may, for example, execute a right-handed rumba pattern over the same.. What happens? The chords utterly come alive thanks to the thumb and finger rasqueado triplet patterns of the flamenco musician. Thus, two people playing the exact same chords, but entirely different emotional results, the difference being measured as the distance between something that is dead and something that comes alive and is very much vibrant.

Note to self: I have to get to started on Ed Byrne's books this week. I've been putting those on the shelf, but I hope to find some time this week to get to 'em. I'm of the opinion that, pedagogically and musically speaking, learning to play is a process of progressively expanding one's knowledge of music, so many methods and forms of knowledge and practice are good, provided that they give one a more expansive musical vocabulary..

[EdByrne]

Por Favor!

For example, practicing a bichordal hexachord such as: C, C#, E, F#, G, A#, C (C & F# triads combined into a pc), I'll start (in 8th notes) from the lowest note on the trombone in that collection: pedal C, & play it up for 5 8vs to double C. I do this repeatedly until smooth, as a 1. slur; 2. legato tongue; 3. stacatto tongue; & then 4. improvise on it with a metronome while imagining a specific rhythmic feel, using articulations, inflections, vibratos, rhythms & gestures. Take a break, then do it again at a different tempo--maybe a different rhythmic feel--all over the instrument.

Especially the initial parts of the process are really good technical practice as well, since you are gaining control of the instrument at the same time. My chops always feel good doing this, while I'm at the same time learning new vocabulary & how to personally use it in every key.

Then I apply it to specific parts of a tune I'm working on.

[EdByrne]

I'm of the opinion that, pedagogically and musically speaking, learning to play is a process of progressively expanding one's knowledge of music, so many methods and forms of knowledge and practice are good, provided that they give one a more expansive musical vocabulary..

pele,

This is so true, & it becomes apparent when you read Paul Berliner's excellent Thinking In Jazz, since 300 practitioners in separate repeated interviews demonstrate how most of us have done all of these approaches at some point, before settling on preferences. And different performance goals & situations will suggest different activities as well. I just think that the melody is a very good place to start. So you are quite right, we need to be ready to periodically at least re-think & alter our routines & approaches as we grow. In a real way, my books merely document what I've been practicing.

Best,
Ed

[Jay Norem]

If we're talking about the modern jazz improviser I'd have to say that a grounding in the concepts of improvisation that have been developing since bebop are only quasi-essential. I think there exists a need to develop or better articulate an approach that goes well beyond the different "what scale goes with what chord" concepts.
That approach is based on the idea that once you've got your "head" you just solo over the changes contained therein. The idea of playing variations on the melodic material of the head is only valid in that case, but there's another element in the music and that element is the composer. Who's to say that the composition stops once you've written the head?
Variation on a theme is not limited to melodies. So a solo-section could itself be a variation on the material presented thus far, containing odd numbers of measures and harmonic information that is based on but not specifically contained in the "head" material. This poses a challenge to the improviser, one that I think has yet to be addressed by any systematic approach to jazz improvisation.
In other words, an analysis of a modern jazz composition where improvisation is concerned is not complete unless a system can be devised that views the solo section as a harmonic whole, rather than as a string of chords, each with its own related scale.

[EdByrne]

If we're talking about the modern jazz improviser I'd have to say that a grounding in the concepts of improvisation that have been developing since bebop are only quasi-essential. I think there exists a need to develop or better articulate an approach that goes well beyond the different "what scale goes with what chord" concepts.
That approach is based on the idea that once you've got your "head" you just solo over the changes contained therein. The idea of playing variations on the melodic material of the head is only valid in that case, but there's another element in the music and that element is the composer. Who's to say that the composition stops once you've written the head?
Variation on a theme is not limited to melodies. So a solo-section could itself be a variation on the material presented thus far, containing odd numbers of measures and harmonic information that is based on but not specifically contained in the "head" material. This poses a challenge to the improviser, one that I think has yet to be addressed by any systematic approach to jazz improvisation.
In other words, an analysis of a modern jazz composition where improvisation is concerned is not complete unless a system can be devised that views the solo section as a harmonic whole, rather than as a string of chords, each with its own related scale.

Jay,

For what it's worth, this is precisely what my LI method addresses (43 books?--lost count). In my view, this developmental approach to specific elements of specific compositions transcends styles & periods equally as well.

Ed

[Bob Budny]

For example, practicing a bichordal hexachord such as: C, C#, E, F#, G, A#, C (C & F# triads combined into a pc), I'll start (in 8th notes) from the lowest note on the trombone in that collection: pedal C, & play it up for 5 8vs to double C. I do this repeatedly until smooth, as a 1. slur; 2. legato tongue; 3. stacatto tongue; & then 4. improvise on it with a metronome while imagining a specific rhythmic feel, using articulations, inflections, vibratos, rhythms & gestures. Take a break, then do it again at a different tempo--maybe a different rhythmic feel--all over the instrument.

Especially the initial parts of the process are really good technical practice as well, since you are gaining control of the instrument at the same time. My chops always feel good doing this, while I'm at the same time learning new vocabulary & how to personally use it in every key.

Then I apply it to specific parts of a tune I'm working on.
Gratias

[Jay Norem]

Jay,

For what it's worth, this is precisely what my LI method addresses (43 books?--lost count). In my view, this developmental approach to specific elements of specific compositions transcends styles & periods equally as well.

Ed

Ed, let's look at a concrete example. (Call it a friendly "challenge.")

Have a look at this:

http://freejazzinstitute.org/showposts.php?dept=analysis&topic=20080126145915_jay_norem

Problem: the improviser is faced with soloing over non-resolving chords contained in a non-symetrical sequence, in this case groupings of 7 bars. So how would you present a "unified-field" analysis of this so that the improviser would be able to simply relax and make his statement without having to worry about the non-functional harmony and the odd measure groupings?

[EdByrne]

Ed, let's look at a concrete example. (Call it a friendly "challenge.")

Have a look at this:

http://freejazzinstitute.org/showposts.php?dept=analysis&topic=20080126145915_jay_norem

Problem: the improviser is faced with soloing over non-resolving chords contained in a non-symetrical sequence, in this case groupings of 7 bars. So how would you present a "unified-field" analysis of this so that the improviser would be able to simply relax and make his statement without having to worry about the non-functional harmony and the odd measure groupings?

Jay,

In the 1st example, the notes are indescernable. Is the piano lead-line (which I can read) the same?

Anyway, I'll go with the piano line, which is most atypical & atonal. Different kinds of tunes suggest different approaches. On this piece I'd address the line itself, which has certain salient characteristics: a stepwise ascending line with intermitant leaps, mostly up. It seems that most of the line targets Bb & Gb (below), but it ends ambiguously on Eb & Ab.

There are a few important rhythmic gestures, such as 8th notes followed primarily by off-beat sustained notes, juxtaposed with long notes place on the beat to keep us guessing. Then there are the 8th-note triplets & their permutations which are characterized by leaps which turn stepwise to their "resolution." Any of these specific motives can be developed by transposition, figuration, fragmentation, retrograde, & a host of other developmental devices--combined with the various rhythms. (That's the book I'm workin' on now--& what I'm practicing.)

Having said this, no method alone could prepare one to improvise on this piece. I avoid 7-bar phrases, for example, especially on a constant structure such as this (all +9 chords), since I would find it to be an un-necessary straight-jacket. Odd-length phrases such as 7 make most sense to me when suggested by a strong rhythmic ostinato, or by chord changes of varying qualities that require an extra measure (or fewer measures) for completion. As a soloist, I'd be tempted to learn the shit out of the motives, & ignore the underlying structure altogether. As a composer, I'd either abandon the form & the changes on the solo section, or drastically simplify them after the head, since I can't see how they are necessary--& they get in the way. I think you write great lines, but I'd most definitely search for strategies to make them more "user-friendly," because this stuff is HARD CITY. I know you can capture the same feel in this case, without it being so.

I'd be real interested to hear Vic's take on this.

Best,
Ed

[Jay Norem]

In the 1st example, the notes are indescernable. Is the piano lead-line (which I can read) the same?

No, the sax and piano are playing two different lines. Melody starts on measure 4. The first three measures are just the intro, written in rhythm notation.
At bar 4 the first sax note is C# concert, and the first piano note is F#.
Question: do you take the melody into consideration when analysing the solo section chords?

[EdByrne]

No, the sax and piano are playing two different lines. Melody starts on measure 4. The first three measures are just the intro, written in rhythm notation.
At bar 4 the first sax note is C# concert, and the first piano note is F#.
Question: do you take the melody into consideration when analysing the solo section chords?

The 1st example is unreadable, so I was going by the piano line. Ultimately, it probably wouldn't change my remarks much, though. It is a matter of taste--& expedience, but counting out 7-bar phrases of the same chord-type would drive me crazy. Maybe instruct the pianist to transpose +9 chords around at will, & blow motivically over that.

[Jay Norem]

After the head is stated, what difference does the specific succession of +9 chords make that you couldn't do in 4 or 8mm? or free form?

I see what you mean, but all 14 chords in the solo section can be "accounted for" in the head. Three times through the first 7 bars, and one time through the second 7, so it's A-A-A-B, just like the head. So I take my head chords and then make a solo section out of them. It's a pretty simplistic approach, I'll admit, but my Aspergian "literal-ness" always seems to lead me me to these conclusions, for better or worse.
However, the entire solo form is an even 28 measures; well, that's still 7 groupings of four bars, but I very much like things that aren't "even." Not that I have anything against things that are. Hell I don't know. I think I need a drink. Hey, maybe that's my problem!
Oh well...anyway, let's not hijack this thread, which is very interesting to me.

[EdByrne]

I see what you mean, but all 14 chords in the solo section can be "accounted for" in the head. Three times through the first 7 bars, and one time through the second 7, so it's A-A-A-B, just like the head. So I take my head chords and then make a solo section out of them. It's a pretty simplistic approach, I'll admit, but my Aspergian "literal-ness" always seems to lead me me to these conclusions, for better or worse.
However, the entire solo form is an even 28 measures; well, that's still 7 groupings of four bars, but I very much like things that aren't "even." Not that I have anything against things that are. Hell I don't know. I think I need a drink. Hey, maybe that's my problem!
Oh well...anyway, let's not hijack this thread, which is very interesting to me.


Cool, Jay. I just want to say that it is not at all unusual to have simplified form & changes for the solos section. Check out, for example, my transcription of Mingus' "Goodbye Porkpie Hat" at the freejazzinstitute.

Best toya, my friend.

E

[Bob Budny]

Maybe instruct the pianist to transpose +9 chords around at will, & blow motivically over that.

So that would sound cohesive by virtue of the similar sonority? Is this an extension of the Debussy etc. 'major chord harmonization idea?'

[Bob Budny]

Jay, How was Voodoo Chili recorded?

[EdByrne]

So that would sound cohesive by virtue of the similar sonority? Is this an extension of the Debussy etc. 'major chord harmonization idea?'

Bob,

I'm not sure what you are asking about Debussy, but this constant structure idea did seem to be a salient characteristic of Impressionist music, & I don't think it was limited to Major chords. Debussy in "Iberia," for example treats the diminished (minus one pitch class) in a similar manner, & he uses the WT as a constant structure whenever he wants to portray danger. Ravel does a variety of similar devices--mostly over pedal points--in "Concerto for the Left Hand," if memory serves. And before that, Lizst planed + triads for a sort-of constant structure approaching the Whole-Tone pc. Wagner pioneered much of this in his operas, where traditional rules were often broken for the pragmatic purposes of portraying drama.

Since Jay employs only +9 chords in the head (a constant structure), & since the form is such a bear, I'm thinking that it would be easier (& make more sense) for the soloist to play free (motivically) on it. Since the same quality of chord is transposed in the head, it might capture a similar feeling to have the pianist transpose it around at will, rather than to lock it in to a recurring form. But in this way, he'd still be transposing that same basic sound--only more freely (randomly). This opinion is strengthened by the fact that the original root progression itself seems to be based on the line, rather than melodic considerations its own. The overall harmonic sound strikes me essentially as +9 chords being randomly transposed--anyway.

This is entirely my subjective take, but when I look at this piece from the standpoint of ME soloing on it convincingly (& comfortably), regardless of preparation, it seems like a straight-jacket. It's not the hard work it would require that bothers me, but that it seems unnecessary. The question arises: Even if this chord were transposed within an 8-bar form, what is achieved by "making" these transpositions ("changes")? And in this case, you would merely be improvising on 3 transpositions of a diminished--or far more transpositions of a blues scale. And the head itself doesn't adhere to the chords in a consistently diminished or blues manner (which would perhaps warrant a chord-scale approach). I would prefer to play "free" on it, & in the solo, focus on capturing the feel of the motives, rhythms & gestures of the line.

What's your take on this?

Ed

[Bob Budny]

I'm not sure what you are asking about Debussy, but this constant structure idea did seem to be a salient characteristic of Impressionist music.

I was alluding to the practice during that period to harmonize a line with major triads or alternating maj-min triads, with the melody note rotating 1-3-5-3-1 (or as I often prefer 7-9-11 etc). Your answer did address my question, however.

What's your take on this?

It turns out to be the central issue in my humble "compositional" efforts.
E.g., there'll be a line with melodic & rhythmic motives and a harmonization of the line.

Dependant on their gifts and comfort zones, player A will blow on the changes bound by the form; player B may develop the motives while the pno/gtr 'circulates the harmonic principle' of the piece (similar to your response to Jay); while player C chooses to abandon the piece and play a freely improvised 'echo' of what's happening.

The alternative is to have several rehearsal groups (straight-ahead, 'great American songbook', the experimental-group-theoretically-good....)

The trick in these parts, given few venues and few gifted players (who haven't already left town), is to do all of the above without alienating segments of one's small but mighty audience. Fortunately, 'free improv' doesn't have to sound like a slaughter house, and lines don't have to be 'wierd' to be creative.

[Bob Budny]

Jay, How was Voodoo Chili recorded?

Let me clarify my question. Your myspace clips sound like midi plus you on drums. But on Voodoo, it's hard to tell what's what, at least over my laptop speakers. Given the time frame and precision I suppose it's also midi, but I'm interested in how you did it and with what.:confused2

[EdByrne]

[QUOTE=Bob Budny;362703]The alternative is to have several rehearsal groups (straight-ahead, 'great American songbook', the experimental-group-theoretically-good....)

Hmm. I wasn't really addressing overall group concept, since of course a given group can embrace a variety of such approaches. My group does that, but (hopefully) all in a recognizable overall style, however disperate the devices are from tune to tune.

The trick in these parts, given few venues and few gifted players (who haven't already left town), is to do all of the above without alienating segments of one's small but mighty audience. Fortunately, 'free improv' doesn't have to sound like a slaughter house, and lines don't have to be 'wierd' to be creative.

This, I think, is a different issue altogether. But I think that the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the audience for any of these approaches is largely dependent upon how effectively & honestly it is put across in performance. I believe that if it is performed convincingly, with a sense of unity throughout, it will get over to them. I think much of the problem with free jazz was in the primal scream aspect of it (tell it to your shrink), as well as the all-too-often reality that players often had no idea--even attempt--at making the improvisations meaningfully linked to the head (if there was one). (Ornette obviously did achieve this.)

As with Schoenberg's 12-tone avant-garde, critics focused on whether it would replace tonality (or mainstream jazz), while in reality it was, as it always is, ultimately assimilated into the mainstream. And in the process, the free jazz stuff, much of which borrows from early New Orleans jazz, has greatly enhanced the mainstream in the process. It needn't be an either-or thing, either. Shepp, Blythe, & many others, for example, use avant-garde jazz devices in mainstream pieces, often employing group improvisation in intros & tags, as well as dual solos & pantonal motivic transposition. I've seen those guys get the house regularly while employing these means.

It also, of course, depends on the audience & especially the occasion (I wouldn't do this early in the evening at a "jazz" wedding, for example).

This may seem naive, but I think the larger problem in this regard is the business getting in the way of the audience, in their insistance for marketing niches & demographics. Get past them, do it in a powerful way, & they (the audience) will love it--especially if it is part of an overall variety of compositional approaches performed by a group with a convincing identifiable personal style throughout the different devices & compositions.

[Bob Budny]

I wasn't really addressing overall group concept,
I admit a tendency to think in general principles, but we certainly are in agreement on this.

[Jay Norem]

Jay, How was Voodoo Chili recorded?

Hey Bob. I have an old Ensoniq TS-10 that plays sampled sounds and has a 16-track sequencer. I construct sequences by playing the individual parts, one sequence for the A section, one for the B section, and so one, then string those sequences togther to make a completed song. Then I play the song back and record it to the computer using Cubase, which was bundled with my sound card. Once that's done I convert the resulting file to MP3 format and that's it.

[Bob Budny]

Hey Bob. I have an old Ensoniq TS-10 that plays sampled sounds and has a 16-track sequencer. I construct sequences by playing the individual parts, one sequence for the A section, one for the B section, and so one, then string those sequences togther to make a completed song. Then I play the song back and record it to the computer using Cubase, which was bundled with my sound card. Once that's done I convert the resulting file to MP3 format and that's it.

Very cool.

[Jay Norem]

Very cool.

Why thank you Bob. The thing I like about this approach is that there aren't any short cuts. I've got to play every note in real time, so it's fun as well as productive. Of course, when it comes to the solos I have to slow the tempo down considerably to be able to play the lines. And I do the piano solos in two passes on two separate tracks, one for each hand. Of course it's cheating!
And then I get these okay-sounding audio files that I can burn to CDs to give to the guys in my band so they can work on the tunes at home.
How did we ever get by without this technology?
But, please, back to chord scales. Sorry for the interuption.

[Bob Budny]

How did we ever get by without this technology?
But, please, back to chord scales. Sorry for the interuption.

Quite so. I'm getting vicarious thrills watching the thread, I put writing on hold to learn bass How many lifetimes do we get.

[Bob Budny]

I posted a ditty on fji. Originally a freebop launch head, I'd like to expand it, add optional blowing changes. Input welcomed. Be gentle.

[EdByrne]

I posted a ditty on fji. Originally a freebop launch head, I'd like to expand it, add optional blowing changes. Input welcomed. Be gentle.

Bob,

I'd begin by developing the line. In reducing it, I find the P4 to be the basic idea being transposed: A, D; F, Bb; D, G; Eb, A (+4). Before harmonizing it, I'd 1st develop the line. I'd start by messing with the P4 interval by extending it to an 8m phrase, & go from there, perhaps employing some +4s in the mix for surprise.

The line seems to suggest a non-functional chord sucession, which could either have a priority note (or chord)--or not. As it stands, though, I'm hearing the final Gb as "do" (priority note), which sounds to me out of place for that reason (I'm hearing atonal here, since the Gb sounds too obvious, following the tonal ambiguity of the line preceeding it).

After firming the line up, I'd experiment with chords that make the melody notes into some kind of 9th, 11th or 13th, since this line suggests to me a 20th century approach. Of course it could be harmonized with 2-5s, but I don't think you're looking for that here. That would be easy to do, though, & it could take it inside if that's what you want.

Another approach would be to create a good root progression (by ear on your bass) against the (developed) line--before adding chords. That would also narrow your chord choices: This actually might be the way to go, given your interest in counterpoint.

Best,
Ed

PS: Try this for the last chord (put the last 2 notes, Db & Gb, up an 8v with Gb in the lead): Gb/G bass.

[Bob Budny]

I'd begin by developing the line. In reducing it, I find the P4 to be the basic idea being transposed: A, D; F, Bb; D, G; Eb, A (+4). Before harmonizing it, I'd 1st develop the line. I'd start by messing with the P4 interval by extending it to an 8m phrase, & go from there, perhaps employing some +4s in the mix for surprise.

That's all the text there is, so unpacking the line and developing the fragments....

The line seems to suggest a non-functional chord sucession, which could either have a priority note (or chord)--or not. As it stands, though, I'm hearing the final Gb as "do" (priority note), which sounds to me out of place for that reason (I'm hearing atonal here, since the Gb sounds too obvious, following the tonal ambiguity of the line preceeding it).

Part of the idea was to 'resolve' the atonal to the tonal, so that both blowing options are available. I do need to shape this more. If anything, that Gb may resolve to F. I tried to relate the last text line "who am I and where" to the 'close encounters' riff.

After firming the line up, I'd experiment with chords that make the melody notes into some kind of 9th, 11th or 13th, since this line suggests to me a 20th century approach. Of course it could be harmonized with 2-5s, but I don't think you're looking for that here. That would be easy to do, though, & it could take it inside if that's what you want.

Right. I'm hearing 9-11-13s but rarely ii-V, which seems to have been done.

Another approach would be to create a good root progression (by ear on your bass) against the (developed) line--before adding chords. That would also narrow your chord choices: This actually might be the way to go, given your interest in counterpoint.

You've got my number.

Appreciatively,
Bb

[EdByrne]

[QUOTE=Bob Budny;363177]That's all the text there is, so unpacking the line and developing the fragments....

Try stretching the melody out then (one m could be 2 or 4mm). What rhythmic style do you have in mind? Any hits? (other possible considerations)

Part of the idea was to 'resolve' the atonal to the tonal, so that both blowing options are available. I do need to shape this more. If anything, that Gb may resolve to F. I tried to relate the last text line "who am I and where" to the 'close encounters' riff.

If that's the intention, try developing the middle of the line in such a way as to prepare for the "tonal" resolution. Then again, a final chord such as I suggested might make that Gb work with what you have, if it jolts enough in context with whatever other chords you use before that.

I hope this helps & I am not "bloviating," as Phil would call it.

Chromaticus Compositionus

[gman1234]

Ed,

I think that all or most of the guys you cite have indeed been well-versed in CST, but they also have a deep understanding of the composition from which their statements derive meaning. I am not saying that such scales are worthless by any means, only that their importance is over-estimated in jazz pedagogy to the point of being primary.

With regard to modern tunes with chord successions, I think its high time jazz developed beyond 19th century harmony; but I see no relevance whatsoever in the traditional developmental processes needed in improvising on such material. While the harmony is different, lines based on the melody, guide tone line & root progression are just as relevant over any harmonic style; & lines developed in this manner will work over virtually any harmonic style. Miles Davis, for example, imitated Maurice Ravel's Concerto for the Left Hand to create a kind of Impressionist Jazz for over 13 years. In the process, however, he never forgot to develop the exposition line & the composition's other salient characteristics in his improvisations (see, for example, Filles de Kilimanjaro).

I have taught clinics--in Sweden, for example--in which a small group was struggling with a Wayne Shorter tune. Once I reduced and simplified the melody, gtl, & rp, they suddenly got it: their comprehension of the piece's essential elements & intent was clear in the very next run-through.

For me, the question is about priorities. Of course, all of these approaches are useful. Nonetheless, it is up to each of us to decide what the priorities are, since you can't count on more than one lifetime to master what you need, & to do what you want to do. One could, for example, spend a lifetime just mastering solfeggio, so it is up to us to decide what skills we need most, & how much focus needs to be put on each of them. As a jazz practitioner, I think that CST miss-uses its bully pulpit, miss-leading its students about priorities in the process.

Btw, CST was well in place long before PM attended Berklee (he was a student there, studying with Mick Goodrick, when I taught there in another lifetime). While John LaPorta developed a Pentatonic method early on (c. 1950?), CST was established when Jerry Coker systematized it in his book, Improvising Jazz a decade later. More important, however, is that he was the 1st full-time college jazz educator. He wrote his curriculum based upon CST. He told me that he did this because the classical music administrators otherwise wouldn't have accepted traditional jazz educational concepts--or as a valid subject at all. Jazz is only in higher education because of enrollment: Students demand jazz courses.

Best,
Ed

Ed Byrne,
I appreciate your knowledge displayed here.

Question. In my perhaps oversimplified approach, most chords imply a scale. While your historical explanation of the evolvement of CST is eye opening , is this an artificial argument? ( Not by you, but by the myopic CScale crew ! )
eg When I see a chord, i see the extensions ( with some arbitrariness of course ) . I try to see a few chords as related to one scale, be it simple or synthetic.

With respect to your knowledge and background: Is the CST versus chordal approach somewhat unnecessary, a man made problem, an illusion?

[engelbach]

In my perhaps oversimplified approach, most chords imply a scale.

Pardon me for sticking my two cents in here.

I think what you say is true but not the whole truth, since different scales can be played against the same chord, depending upon the key of the piece and the context.

And some chords can be so ambiguous that you can play anything with them.

[EdByrne]

Ed Byrne,
I appreciate your knowledge displayed here.

Question. In my perhaps oversimplified approach, most chords imply a scale. While your historical explanation of the evolvement of CST is eye opening , is this an artificial argument? ( Not by you, but by the myopic CScale crew ! )
eg When I see a chord, i see the extensions ( with some arbitrariness of course ) . I try to see a few chords as related to one scale, be it simple or synthetic.

With respect to your knowledge and background: Is the CST versus chordal approach somewhat unnecessary, a man made problem, an illusion?

Welcome, gman1234,

Thanks for your question. I'll let you decide on the merits of my argument for yourself. However, I am talking about an attitude, really. I try to view chords as coincidental to my lines: They coexist, but the line rules. While the chords often project & suggest a mood, I do not translate them (any longer) into scales (materials) for improvisation. I focus on the motivic (including the rhythmic) stuff for that.

All approaches inform our preparation in different ways, but for me the issue is priorities, since I begin with the melody & its rhythm. Moreover, I usually prefer scales (pitch collections) that have fewer than 7 notes, since the latter offer too much information; & consistent conjunct motion is less melodic for my taste.

I find the CST approach to be a bit upside down, since I don't wish to draw content primarily from the accompaniment, but rather from that which the accompaniment supports. Having said this, I have done all approaches, & I rule nothing out for ideological reasons. Also, different tunes suggest different approaches.

The only thing I would add here is that if most chords imply a scale, it is because CST has taught us to hear & think in that manner. There are other useful ways to think (prepare) as well; & when we prepare differently, often we get different results.


Best,
Ed

[gman1234]

Welcome, gman1234,

Thanks for your question. I'll let you decide on the merits of my argument for yourself. However, I am talking about an attitude, really. I try to view chords as coincidental to my lines: They coexist, but the line rules. While the chords often project & suggest a mood, I do not translate them (any longer) into scales (materials) for improvisation. I focus on the motivic (including the rhythmic) stuff for that.

All approaches inform our preparation in different ways, but for me the issue is priorities, since I begin with the melody & its rhythm. Moreover, I usually prefer scales (pitch collections) that have fewer than 7 notes, since the latter offer too much information; & consistent conjunct motion is less melodic for my taste.

I find the CST approach to be a bit upside down, since I don't wish to draw content primarily from the accompaniment, but rather from that which the accompaniment supports. Having said this, I have done all approaches, & I rule nothing out for ideological reasons. Also, different tunes suggest different approaches.

The only thing I would add here is that if most chords imply a scale, it is because CST has taught us to hear & think in that manner. There are other useful ways to think (prepare) as well; & when we prepare differently, often we get different results.


Best,
Ed

I love this answer. Thanks much

[EdByrne]

I love this answer. Thanks much

Always glad to offer food for thought, gman. In practicing my own material, as I do now, I routinely take a variety of different approaches, one at a time. In performance I just sing, pace myself, engage in the interplay with the band & the audience; & I try to pace my climaxes--no nuts & bolts in my head at all by that point. I also view everything I play as the music of the drums in whatever dialect I am speaking. I also routinely sing virtually everything that I practice--the express to internalization.

[gman1234]

I debated an author of a music book the need to sing.

You are the first fellow who agrees with me. Plus your emphasis on melodic factors, is similar to my own.
We seem to be in sync.... so bearing that in mind, could you get me a gig? Man it's cold out here!!

[EdByrne]

I debated an author of a music book the need to sing.

You are the first fellow who agrees with me. Plus your emphasis on melodic factors, is similar to my own.
We seem to be in sync.... so bearing that in mind, could you get me a gig? Man it's cold out here!!

Q: How do you make a jazz musician unhappy?

A: Get him a gig.

[gman1234]

Q: How do you make a jazz musician unhappy?

A: Get him a gig.

Is it "ha ha" or huh huh? i never know!