In Defense of Chord-Scales (WARNING: long and rambling)
Chickenhead
I'm starting to think that there may actually be some good value in teaching
students the basics of chord-scale usage and construction. Posts like the
recent "7b5 on Ipanema," or "What scale should I use over an X9b5?" are
convincing me that there's some serious misunderstanding about chord-scales
floating around. I guess if you have Joey DeFrancesco's ears, then the
whole thing is pointless, but for us mortals it's a different deal.
A lot of beginning jazz students seem to be in need of learning how to
create and apply chord-scales properly. As Merlin said: A little knowledge
is a dangerous thing. A lot of folks need to understand the difference
between a b5 and a #11, and why one is used and not the other, and to
understand that the chords in charts and fake books are often just plain
wrong or misleading. As soon as someone asks "what scale should I use over
. . . ?" my antennae beeps that there's a misunderstanding occurring. For
example, I worry that if a student has gotten to the "improvising over
Ipanema" stage by his/her teacher telling him/her to use X scale over Y
chord, then maybe their teacher doesn't really understand chord-scales
themselves; or, at best, said teacher is just shortcutting. Either way,
it's shortchanging and confusing the student.
So I'm going to back off my anti-scale position a little. Instead, I'm
going to advocate a position that once a student enters Scaleville, they
immediately learn and get past proper/standard chord-scale construction.
It's more important that they learn HOW, WHY and WHEN, rather than "which
scale goes over which chord." I think a lot of teachers are shortchanging
their students by giving them scales without putting them in the context of
broader harmony, teaching them how to construct them, and why and when they
work the way they do.
I think the problem isn't so much "scales" per se, as chord-scale
misunderstanding and abuse. I'm all for teaching them how and why -- The
danger is in getting the scales without the how, why, what they mean, and
how harmony works. It's also in a pervasive misunderstanding that scales
should be used as building blocks of good jazz improvisation and
composition.
Every scale should come with
1. a warning that merely plugging scales into/over chords, even the
"correct" scale, is likely to result in crap;
2. a lesson as to how and why the scale is constructed;
3. a warning that finding and plugging-in scales for chords while
navigating fast changes on the fly is pretty much impossible and likely to
make things harder than they need to be;
4. an appropriate harmony lesson including the basic tones of the chord,
how they fit into the key, and, if applicable, how the scale is really a
re-arranged arpeggiation;
5. a few statements on how the same material can be approached through
arpeggiation;
6. some style examples, including examples that show how non-scalar
approaches are used, even if a scale occurs as a by-product -- this should
include actually listening to recordings!
7. MOST IMPORTANTLY: a warning that no "theory" will ever substitute for
time, ears, lifting, and listening, listening, listening.
If all that is kept in mind, I'm thinking it might be a damned good idea to
start making sure these "want a scale" posters learn how and why, rather
than be given yet another scale.
cl...@claymoore.com
Torches and pitchforks are being gathered....
GregD
I don't think teaching scales and theory inhibits the learning of
music.
I am a fan of teaching scales and chord constructionm yet I agree with
you that they can't be used just by themselves to make music. And
anybody with even a set of immature ears will realize it early on.
But scales allow those of us with a more mechanical approach to music
to make better sense of music itself. The listening and ears thing can
come later when we've matured beyond being able to scribble down
letters of the alphabet to wanting to actually write out coherent
thoughts, musically speaking.
Granted, some of us never get past the first grade with that, but at
least we can converse somewhat, even if our vocab is limited. And
while we probably won't quit our day jobs for music, there is still a
big fun factor in making even simpel music.
Greg
nqbqbep
I absolutely agree with your points and would also like to emphasize
the last one. One should know the theory and be aware of what is
theoretically the "correct" scale for a given chord in a given
context, but then stop thinking about that and concentrate on hearing
and playing good melodies/phrases. It is the phrase, not the scale,
that is the building block of jazz improvisation. A good phrase will
always work, even if it does not fit the underlying chord exactly.
Examples: a IImin7 - V7 phrase over a IImin7b5 - V7 will usually work
if its a good phrase even though theory says locrian, not dorian, is
the correct mode over the half diminished chord. And if you look at
any Charlie Parker blues solo you'll definitely see lots of maj7
phrases over the I7 chord, even though theory says mixolydian, not
ionian, would be the correct mode for that chord. All these things
work, and work greatly, because it is the phrase that really matters,
not the theoretical chord-scale relationship. Our ears just want to
hear nice melodies and for this they're willing to even accept clashes
between the chord and the scale (like the maj7 clashing with the b7 in
the blues example). As long as the phrase you play is meaningful your
ears (and ours) will forgive you. The inverse is not true: your ears
(ans ours) will never like a crappy phrase even if it fits perfectly
with the underlying chord. That's why one should stop thinking about
scales once he/she has understood them, and focus entirely on the
actual music. The most effective way to learn to hear jazz melodies is
to transcribe a solo from your favorite musician, analyze it, and most
importantly memorize it conceptually, i.e. learn to sing it within
your brain all the time, wherever you are, whatever you do (in the
bus, at the grocery store, in the shower, in your sleep, on your first
date, or yes, even while having sex) and last but not least teach your
mind and fingers to play this transcribed solo or phrase at any
position on your guitar, in any key (I'm tempted to even say in any
tempo ;-). That's what the old masters did back when there were no
books and videos and jazz schools and usenet groups.
I remember Joe Pass saying in one of his videos that for him there
exist only three "sounds": major, minor and dominant. I think what he
meant is basically what I'm also trying to say here. Once you've
taught your inner ear to hear melodies on a minor sound moving to a
dominant sound moving to a major sound it doesn't really matter too
much whether the actual chords your pianist plays are IImin9 V+7 Imaj7
or IImin7b5 V13b9 Imaj6 (you cannot know in advance which
substitution he'll play anyway).
Michael Papadopoulos
pmfan57
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. "Get yer angry mob tools here."
DougW
<kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> If all that is kept in mind, I'm thinking it might be a damned good idea to
> start making sure these "want a scale" posters learn how and why, rather
> than be given yet another scale.
The problem is, I find, that the people who base their playing on
chord/scale stuff tend to put too much emphasis on it over learning
things by listening to great musicians and copying them to learn the
language.
pmfan57
On the other hand some (at least of the earlier) chord/scale guys were
already good players, who, when they started out, learned by copying
earlier players, but thought that *other* people might benefit from
learning these relationships. The David Bakers of the world learned
the regular way first, and, based on their study (and transcription)
of earlier players, extracted devices they thought they saw there.
But obviously you won't sound like Phil Woods or Ben Webster by
applying rules. You have to listen and copy from records to be really
good.
Imagine what a blues or rock player would sound like if they learned
just by internalizing what blues scale goes where, without listening
to and copying famous solos by the three Kings, or Clapton, Beck,
Hendrix et al. Probably pretty awful.
Chickenhead
tendencies and, as Roland Wiggins used to say, have syntactic rules
determining what is forbidden, permitted and obligatory. I think it can be
very helpful to try and determine rules that apply to styles and players,
but, obviously, listening comes first. I suppose, in theory, one could
probably cop a lot of things by pure rules and sheet music. If you want to
sound like EVH, Pat Martino, Joe Pass, or Jimmy Nolen, you'll have to apply
some rules, either consciously or unconsciously.
But this is splitting hairs, since listening is the best way to figure those
rules out. And you'd still have to hear and play time not to suck.
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e45084b9-893a-409b...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Chickenhead
If someone's gonna' go there, ya' might as well make sure they at least know
what they're doing, but mainly so that they can move on. Basing one's
playing on chord scales, and not listening enough to great musicians, is
pretty much 100% guaranteed to produce crap. On the other hand, one can
become a great great musician without ever learning a drop of theory or a
single chord scale.
I think the problem starts when a teacher gives a student a scale to play
with to get them started improvising, and next thing you know people start
thinking that plugging-in scales is really how to play jazz; or that chord
scales are some kind of special magic instead of just Basic (with a capital
"B"). One problem with teaching is that student retention is a lot easier
when you give kids scales to play with: You just tell 'em where to put the
fingers, and suddenly they feel like they can make music. At one time, I
too was one of those damned fool students who fell for it. When I think how
much better I'd be today if I'd started with listening and time . . .
On the other hand, teaching students to hear can be tricky. I've found
teaching listening and time to beginners is difficult politically and
financially -- I believe in it, but you can lose a lot of students because
they don't get gratification as quickly. It can be mortifying and
discouraging for them to discover their ears and rhythm need work. It's
painful.
Also, their parents, their friends, and the students themselves, think their
progress is slow because they can't play all the stuff the other kids
learned from the teacher who just showed them where to put their fingers.
I've been in that situation many times, and its one of the major reasons I
find teaching difficult.
So we end up with this situation where zillions of beginner, and even
intermediate, guitarists try to play jazz by plugging-in scales; or play
rock by playing some Metallica or Eddie Van Halen lick they learned from a
tab book or teacher, or plugging in yet another scale. There ought to be
some kind of fine or jail sentence for teachers who don't start their
students with listening before they play a single note, but until that
happens we're going to be stuck with zillions of folks who think scales and
theory are where it's at.
"DougW" <dougw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed72fc55-5a0a-4cef...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
rpjazz...@gmail.com
To me, chord/scale theory is a crutch. If you can't hear the sounds
you want in your mind and find them automatically on the guitar, you
can use chord/scale theory to avoid clams. Going clamless is a good
thing, but it doesn't rise to the level of music.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with using a crutch when you need
one. But, the idea is to get beyond it, if you can.
The other point I'd make is that reading on-line forums has made me
think of chord/scale theory as a bottomless abyss. major, melmin,
harmmin, dim, WT, pentatonic, hexatonic, each with multiple
applications, upper structure, 4 note groups, pairs of triads, on and
on, seemingly endlessly. But, they're only good if you can hear the
sounds in your mind. I think it's a lot easier to do that by starting
with music and working backwards to scales than it is to start with
scale and hope someday you'll internalize the sounds.
tonyde...@gmail.com
>
> news:ed72fc55-5a0a-4cef...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 2:43 pm, "Chickenhead"
> > <kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> >> If all that is kept in mind, I'm thinking it might be a damned good idea
> >> to
> >> start making sure these "want a scale" posters learn how and why, rather
> >> than be given yet another scale.
>
> > The problem is, I find, that the people who base their playing on
> > chord/scale stuff tend to put too much emphasis on it over learning
> > things by listening to great musicians and copying them to learn the
>
> - Show quoted text -
No stone unturned. Other than that it ain't no big deal. It's a matter
of dues.
-TD
Joe Finn
-- "Chickenhead" wrote
>
> I think the problem starts when a teacher gives a student a scale to play
> with to get them started improvising, and next thing you know people start
> thinking that plugging-in scales is really how to play jazz; or that chord
> scales are some kind of special magic instead of just Basic (with a
> capital "B"). One problem with teaching is that student retention is a
> lot easier when you give kids scales to play with: You just tell 'em
> where to put the fingers, and suddenly they feel like they can make music.
> At one time, I too was one of those damned fool students who fell for it.
> When I think how much better I'd be today if I'd started with listening
> and time . . .
From the instructor's perspective teaching scales is quite efficient. It's a
good thing to learn a few chord/scale relationships. Nobody should turn it
into a fetish though.
> On the other hand, teaching students to hear can be tricky. I've found
> teaching listening and time to beginners is difficult politically and
> financially -- I believe in it, but you can lose a lot of students because
> they don't get gratification as quickly. It can be mortifying and
> discouraging for them to discover their ears and rhythm need work. It's
> painful.
Having them work on transcriptions is good ear training. Teaching intervals
and chord identification by ear is good too. .............joe
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
Joey Goldstein
The only reason any student of jazz music should study chord-scales is
to expand their ears and their technique, both their physical technique
and their compositional/improvisational/mental techniqe.
What they then do with their ears and their technique is their own business.
Anybody who studies chord-scales but has never figured out anything by
ear off of a record will never learn how to improvise, whether it be in
jazz or rock or any other style of music.
People who learn to play off of records without ever studying
chord-scales might do fine in their musical lives.
But studying chord-scales should help them get better faster.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Didier Verna
> I absolutely agree with your points and would also like to emphasize
> the last one. One should know the theory and be aware of what is
> theoretically the "correct" scale for a given chord in a given
> context, but then stop thinking about that and concentrate on hearing
> and playing good melodies/phrases. It is the phrase, not the scale,
> that is the building block of jazz improvisation.
I believe this is more than that: phrases are indeed more important
than scales, but transitional phrases are more important than phrases.
What I mean is that what makes your improvisation music (and not just
exercise), is your ability to construct phrases over changes, that sort
of "glue" the pieces together.
Nothing is more boring that an improviser merely starting a new phrase
(even a correct one) each time there is a change of tonality for
instance. It is much more interesting to play over changes than to play
in between them.
BTW, it is the same in natural language. When you speak, one of the most
important things you do without even thinking about it is use logical
transitions. What brings you from point A to point B and why. There is
more meaning in transitions than anywhere else. For instance, if I say:
"I went to the store yesterday, and Resident Evil is really a crappy movie"
you will have a hard time understanding what I meant or why I said such
a thing, although both parts of the sentence are correct (and true BTW
;-). However, if I say:
"I went to the store yesterday; there was this big Resident Evil poster
on the wall. Oh boy, what a crappy movie !"
Then, everything becomes clear: you have explained how you got from
point A (the store) to point B (a comment on a film).
So as a teacher, I try to make people learn how to play over transitions
rather than over individual chords or scales or whatever static context.
--
Didier Verna <did...@didierverna.com> http://www.didierverna.com/
Dan Adler
<kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> students the basics of chord-scale usage and construction.
I think, if there is anything controversial here, it's more the issue
described here by Bill Evans of people trying to "approximate" the
jazz process rather than immersing themselves and laying a real
foundation that they can build on (he says it much better):
tonyde...@gmail.com
Greger Hoel
<did...@didierverna.com>:
> So as a teacher, I try to make people learn how to play over transitions
> rather than over individual chords or scales or whatever static context.
Great post, man; I wish you were my teacher.
--
Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Dan Adler
Didier,
That's a good summary of Scott Henderson's instructional Video.
Joey Goldstein
That's a very good description, and a good analogy of the types of
higher order creative thinking that one must develop in order to play
decent phrases.
But, IMO, one of the things that one has to have together *before* he
can explore any sort of creative transition between chords, is basic
note choice on each chord. This will involve the study of how the chord
tones of chord A voice lead into the chord tones of chord B (especially
the 3rds and 7ths) as well as the study of how various chord-scale
choices for chord A "scale-lead" into the various chord-scale choices
for chord B. And both of the above tasks involve getting familiar with
each individual chord first, then the transition.
pmfan57
I love how his "simple but honest" playing example is so good, you
could easily make a good career out of playing like that.
rpjazz...@gmail.com
thing in common: big ears.
Most know some theory, but some don't.
Years ago I played a lot with a horn player who couldn't tell you the
notes of a C major chord (even though he could read). The only hint of
his atheoretical approach was, when playing a song he'd never heard,
his phrasing would change, so that he had a moment to hear each new
chord before he played anything. He'd be about 70 now -- he said that
was the way all the kids learned when he was a teenager, in Indiana, I
think.
Now, ear training is a slow process. I think the message here is that
it's important to devote enough time to it. Since chord/scale theory
is essentially infinite, I don't think it's a good idea to wait until
you're finished learning chord scale theory to start ear training. <g>
Transcription is the classic method. There are some other things that
can help -- melodic dictation, sight singing and so forth.
Dan Adler
> The players I know whose improvisation I really like all have one
> thing in common: big ears.
>
> Most know some theory, but some don't.
If it were *just* a matter of how good your ears are then every
classical musician would be an incredible jazz musician. So, it's way
more than that. There is a stylistic foundation and there is an
analytical foundation that must be acquired.
"Savants" like Wes, Django and Holdsworth can obtain it without
leaning on any theoretical foundation except their own, but most
people need to build on what other people have already figured out if
they are going to get anywhere within a single lifetime.
Prescribing "savant" or "genius" learning habits to someone with
moderate talent would simply be irresponsible and frustrating.
Five Sharp
> leaning on any theoretical foundation except their own, but most
> people need to build on what other people have already figured out if
> they are going to get anywhere within a single lifetime.
I tend to think the academic approach is largely culturally determined too.
Most if not all Sintis (Stochelo and Jimmy Rosenberg are just the tip of the
iceberg) really have no idea what the heck they are playing. They can't
possibly be all savants. There's quite a few teen kids over here with
astonishing chops.
#####
Dan Adler
Dick,
It's culturally very different, but it's still a methodology and it's
followed very closely. I've read most of the Gypsy Jazz Guitar books
by people like Romane and Angelo De Barre etc. (and of course, Michael
Horowitz) I think they have some of the most rigorous and focused
teaching approach of any group of players.
They are super theoreticians, though they use their own terminology
and may not read and write. If you play in that style, you will have
learned very specific diminished runs and very specific Am arpeggios
and you are expected to perform those exactly and with no deviation.
Same with picking. It's almost like military training. Did you see the
spirit of Django video where Ferre shows how "Autumn Leaves" is the
same as a classical progression. They know it all! Maybe Django
himself didn't, but all the current gypsy players are products of very
rigorous training.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Probably an ignorant question, but here goes: How does a Sinti wind up
with a name like "Rosenberg"?
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Guy Snape
says...
(good stuff snipped)
> So as a teacher, I try to make people learn how to play over transitions
> rather than over individual chords or scales or whatever static context.
This is something I still struggle with. What exercises, concepts, or
whatever do your students find helpful?
Thanks,
- guy
>
>
rpjazz...@gmail.com
different people learn differently and have different goals, there's
no one way.
That said, I still think this. It's easy to be distracted by the
infinite depth of chord scale theory - and miss the soul of the music.
When someone asks, what scale should I play over the Gb7b5 in a
particular tune, the question can be answered in a variety of ways.
The full monty chord scale theory answer could easily list a dozen or
more devices - more depending on the context of the chord. I think it
can get ridiculous for the student.
Another answer is: there are 12 notes in the chromatic scale. Why
don't you put Gm7, Gb7b5 and Fmaj 7, a couple of bars each, in BIAB,
loop it 1000 times slowly and find the notes you like? Or transcribe a
few players you like and see what they did? At that point, you can use
chord scale theory to make it easier to find that sound on another
tune.
Des Higgins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinti
German names were common among the sinti; Reinhardt is a also a German
name even if mainly a first name these days. Rosenberg sounds Jewish
but is originally German (rose hill). It says in the above (and this
is new to me) that Joe Zawinul was sinti.
Des
Steven Bornfeld
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinti
>
> German names were common among the sinti; Reinhardt is a also a German
> name even if mainly a first name these days. Rosenberg sounds Jewish
> but is originally German (rose hill). It says in the above (and this
> is new to me) that Joe Zawinul was sinti.
>
> Des
>
Makes sense--thanks!
Steve
ken
> "Savants" like Wes, Django and Holdsworth can obtain it without
> leaning on any theoretical foundation except their own, but most
> people need to build on what other people have already figured out if
> they are going to get anywhere within a single lifetime.
>
> Prescribing "savant" or "genius" learning habits to someone with
> moderate talent would simply be irresponsible and frustrating.
I used to think that, but I don't really agree with that anymore.
Sure, Wes, Prez and all those guys are incredible geniuses that didn't
need all this chord/scale stuff. But I've met plenty of really old
guys that can play just fine and they all learned the same exact way;
using their ears.
I actually think that peoples' ears are worse now because they depend
on all this theoretical stuff so much. That's the ultimate pitfall of
all this stuff; people use their brains, finger-patterns and all that
stuff instead of their ears.
There is no way to prove this so this is just my opinion...
You can make the same argument about tab in Guitar Magazine. Sure,
many rock geniuses were able to become legends before tab was
invented, but people can still learn the old way; off the records,
instead of just reading it out of a magazine.
I think it's a similar analogy.
Also, don't forget, those tabla guys, when they learn from a master,
they spend years singing the rhythms before they are even allowed to
touch an actual tabla. Imagine what incredible guitar players would
emerge if we had to sing all that stuff before we were allowed to play
it!
Having said that, I'm sure eventually (or maybe even now) someone will
write all this stuff out and start teaching it to people directly on
the tabla without first totally internalizing and immersing in it by
singing...
And then the old tabla masters will just roll their eyes and go "they
don't get it... they are just reading patterns out of a book!"...
Ken
paul s
I remember reading about Joe Venuti, at a young age he was in a music
program where you were immersed in theory and ear training. When you
reached a certain point, you then selected an instrument to play.
Didier Verna
I don't have the time right now. Let me get back to you in a while on
this. I think I have some text already written about that, only in
French. I've been meaning to translate them and put them on my blog or
something; so I might do just that sooner than I had expected.
Didier Verna
> Didier,
>
> That's a good summary of Scott Henderson's instructional Video.
Really ?? Which one (I think I've seen two in stores... I remember
this oh-so-youngish-scotts-face on one of them :-) Scott is one of my
favorite guitar players BTW.
Funny thing is, I discovered Tribal Tech very late (with respect to all
the stuff I knew and liked before, like Uzeb, Brecker Bros, Zawinul
etc), and once I heard them, I started wondering how I could have missed
them for so long. For some reason, they almost never showed up in France
(not even while touring in Europe). That's part of the problem I guess...
Guy Snape
says...
OK, thanks, I look forward to it.
- guy
tom walls
@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, pasa...@mindspring.com says...
> I remember reading about Joe Venuti, at a young age he was in a music
> program where you were immersed in theory and ear training. When you
> reached a certain point, you then selected an instrument to play.
>
>
class", where there was group singing, then a simplified version of
reading. Then -- for those interested -- songflute. Basically a plastic
recorder. More playing and reading. Then a smaller group elected to take
"band", and there were demonstrations of instruments and parents were
counseled regarding purchasing or leasing instruments. Laid the
foundation for the incompetent musician I am today.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Des Higgins
> In article <834fcaee-cb5e-45d8-9c12-313a00cb5a32
> > program where you were immersed in theory and ear training. When you
> > reached a certain point, you then selected an instrument to play.
>
> It was the same way when I was growing up 50 years later. First "music
> class", where there was group singing, then a simplified version of
> reading. Then -- for those interested -- songflute. Basically a plastic
> recorder. More playing and reading. Then a smaller group elected to take
> "band", and there were demonstrations of instruments and parents were
> counseled regarding purchasing or leasing instruments. Laid the
> foundation for the incompetent musician I am today.
Plus the physical violence! No musical education was complete without
generous helpings of pain. Tweed clad horn-rimmed educators with
rulers to help encourage you to not play bum notes. Those were the
days my friend!
Des
Tim McNamara
<834fcaee-cb5e-45d8...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
paul s <pasa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 4:48 pm, ken <kubok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 6, 12:33 pm, Dan Adler <d...@danadler.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Savants" like Wes, Django and Holdsworth can obtain it without
> > > leaning on any theoretical foundation except their own, but most
> > > people need to build on what other people have already figured
> > > out if they are going to get anywhere within a single lifetime.
According to Bill Bruford, Holdsworth "worked like a dog" on Slonimsky's
thesaurus of scales.
> > > Prescribing "savant" or "genius" learning habits to someone with
> > > moderate talent would simply be irresponsible and frustrating.
It's an open question whether musical ability is innately inborn
(talent), which means that the musician has no responsibility for it, or
whether musical ability is developed through practice and effort.
There is an interesting body of research in children that shows that
praising them for their ability (e.g., "you're really good at this")
tends to result in lower performance, whereas praising them for their
effort (e.g., "you've worked really hard at this") tends to result in
better performance.
> > I used to think that, but I don't really agree with that anymore.
> > Sure, Wes, Prez and all those guys are incredible geniuses that
> > didn't need all this chord/scale stuff. But I've met plenty of
> > really old guys that can play just fine and they all learned the
> > same exact way; using their ears.
By which they learned the same information as the theory would have
taught them, just without the linguistic component. Everybody who plays
well knows basically the same stuff. IMHO the point of a jazz player is
to know the music; whether or not they know the musicology is less
important.
pmfan57
> In article
> <834fcaee-cb5e-45d8-9c12-313a00cb5...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Holdsworth also has said, a I recall, that when learning how to play
he learned/memorized all of Charlie Christian's solos. Which is how
Wes learned to play as well!
Des Higgins
And Metheny was supposed to have learned all of Wes M's solos.
It is hard to think of Christian, Metheny and Holdsworth being so
closely connected, given how different they sound, until you know all
the above.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> In article
> <834fcaee-cb5e-45d8...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> paul s <pasa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 6, 4:48 pm, ken <kubok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 6, 12:33 pm, Dan Adler <d...@danadler.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Savants" like Wes, Django and Holdsworth can obtain it without
>>>> leaning on any theoretical foundation except their own, but most
>>>> people need to build on what other people have already figured
>>>> out if they are going to get anywhere within a single lifetime.
>
> According to Bill Bruford, Holdsworth "worked like a dog" on Slonimsky's
> thesaurus of scales.
>
>>>> Prescribing "savant" or "genius" learning habits to someone with
>>>> moderate talent would simply be irresponsible and frustrating.
>
> It's an open question whether musical ability is innately inborn
> (talent), which means that the musician has no responsibility for it, or
> whether musical ability is developed through practice and effort.
At the top level, you almost certainly need both the genetic goods and
plenty of hard work. Obviously neurobiology is now at a pretty
primitive level, but I know they've been able to monitor increased
neuronal activity is very specific areas of the brain for specific
activities (such as music making), and that this activity stimulates the
development of connections along certain neuronal pathways.
I haven't yet read the Sacks book about music, but probably should:
>
> There is an interesting body of research in children that shows that
> praising them for their ability (e.g., "you're really good at this")
> tends to result in lower performance, whereas praising them for their
> effort (e.g., "you've worked really hard at this") tends to result in
> better performance.
Yeah, I'm walkin' that fine line with my daughter (the whiner!)
Steve
>
>>> I used to think that, but I don't really agree with that anymore.
>>> Sure, Wes, Prez and all those guys are incredible geniuses that
>>> didn't need all this chord/scale stuff. But I've met plenty of
>>> really old guys that can play just fine and they all learned the
>>> same exact way; using their ears.
>
> By which they learned the same information as the theory would have
> taught them, just without the linguistic component. Everybody who plays
> well knows basically the same stuff. IMHO the point of a jazz player is
> to know the music; whether or not they know the musicology is less
> important.
--
tom walls
76d664...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, dazzh...@hotmail.com
says...
And humiliation! My god, the humiliation!
Norman Webb
Chickenhead wrote in message ...
>I suppose this is going to ruin my reputation as the resident Anti-Scalite.
>
>I'm starting to think that there may actually be some good value in
teaching
>recent "7b5 on Ipanema," or "What scale should I use over an X9b5?" are
>convincing me that there's some serious misunderstanding about chord-scales
>floating around. I guess if you have Joey DeFrancesco's ears, then the
>whole thing is pointless, but for us mortals it's a different deal.
>
>A lot of beginning jazz students seem to be in need of learning how to
>create and apply chord-scales properly. As Merlin said: A little
knowledge
>is a dangerous thing. A lot of folks need to understand the difference
>between a b5 and a #11, and why one is used and not the other, and to
>understand that the chords in charts and fake books are often just plain
>wrong or misleading. As soon as someone asks "what scale should I use over
>. . . ?" my antennae beeps that there's a misunderstanding occurring. For
>example, I worry that if a student has gotten to the "improvising over
>Ipanema" stage by his/her teacher telling him/her to use X scale over Y
>chord, then maybe their teacher doesn't really understand chord-scales
>themselves; or, at best, said teacher is just shortcutting. Either way,
>it's shortchanging and confusing the student.
>
>So I'm going to back off my anti-scale position a little. Instead, I'm
>going to advocate a position that once a student enters Scaleville, they
>immediately learn and get past proper/standard chord-scale construction.
>It's more important that they learn HOW, WHY and WHEN, rather than "which
>scale goes over which chord." I think a lot of teachers are shortchanging
>their students by giving them scales without putting them in the context of
>broader harmony, teaching them how to construct them, and why and when they
>work the way they do.
>
>I think the problem isn't so much "scales" per se, as chord-scale
>misunderstanding and abuse. I'm all for teaching them how and why -- The
>danger is in getting the scales without the how, why, what they mean, and
>how harmony works. It's also in a pervasive misunderstanding that scales
>should be used as building blocks of good jazz improvisation and
>composition.
>
>Every scale should come with
>
>1. a warning that merely plugging scales into/over chords, even the
>"correct" scale, is likely to result in crap;
>2. a lesson as to how and why the scale is constructed;
>3. a warning that finding and plugging-in scales for chords while
>navigating fast changes on the fly is pretty much impossible and likely to
>make things harder than they need to be;
>4. an appropriate harmony lesson including the basic tones of the chord,
>how they fit into the key, and, if applicable, how the scale is really a
>re-arranged arpeggiation;
>5. a few statements on how the same material can be approached through
>arpeggiation;
>6. some style examples, including examples that show how non-scalar
>approaches are used, even if a scale occurs as a by-product -- this should
>include actually listening to recordings!
>7. MOST IMPORTANTLY: a warning that no "theory" will ever substitute for
>time, ears, lifting, and listening, listening, listening.
>
>If all that is kept in mind, I'm thinking it might be a damned good idea to
>start making sure these "want a scale" posters learn how and why, rather
>than be given yet another scale.
>
>
>
Here's my 2 cents worth as a late starter. As a 20 year old I played guitar
using simple chord accompaniments. At 50 I decided to do it properly,
prompted by my sons' high school music endeavours.
Started with theory and tried to learn scales and fingerboard patterns.
WRONG. Just too much to remember.
So my method was to learn the C major scale all over the fretboard and learn
chord spelling for each type of chord. I therefore learnt all the natural
notes so I could then play any major scale with a C major scale transposed.
Playing over a dominant 7th? Just flat the 7th. Playing over a minor? Flat
3rd. This a little simplistic, but it really gave me a leap in my music
understanding.
And given the fact that you are never more than a half step away from a
note which mostly sounds OK, after a while you can learn to fudge it.
And in the words of some comedian, "if you hit a bum note, play it again and
the audience will applaud. Play it once more and you'll be hailed as an
innovator, leading a new direction in jazz"
The last comments are tongue in cheek, but you get my drift.
Regards
Norm
rpjazz...@gmail.com
My experience is like yours. I spent a lot of time trying to learn
fingerings of scales and arps, but most of that time was wasted.
They're no good unless you can start them from any note in any key.
For whatever reason, I could never do that. And, I was trying with
just a fraction of the fingerings that I've seen recommended for
various things over the years.
Instead, I went your route. I realized I could play all over the place
in the key of C. So I started drilling myself on being able to do that
in every key. It took some work. But there's an end to it. Eventually
you know the notes in each major key and can play them anywhere on the
neck, starting with any finger. Then, playing melmin and major scale
modes over different chords was easy.
I did the same thing with chord tones. The goal is to know the notes
of every chord you play -- as instantly as you know the notes of
Cmaj7.
It's work, but it's not endless.
Rick
Norman Webb
chords you would ever use, with their fingering and chord spelling in four
positions for most.
Even though I do say so myself, they make quite a compact reference.
I can email them to anyone who is interested.
Regards
Norm
rpjazz...@gmail.com wrote in message
<1d00d0df-cfaf-4a51...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>...
maxle...@gmail.com
> On May 5, 2:43 pm, "Chickenhead"
>
> <kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> > start making sure these "want a scale" posters learn how and why, rather
> > than be given yet another scale.
>
> chord/scale stuff tend to put too much emphasis on it over learning
> things by listening to great musicians and copying them to learn the
> language.
Yeah, chord/scale theory only becomes useful after you've copped a
couple of dozen choruses from each of your your ten favourite players.
Chord/scale, and modes, are often put forth as some kind of shortcut,
but they're nothing of the sort. They're an addendum - a useful
addendum, but an addendum nonetheless - to learning the lingua franca
of music. And you learn the lingua franca by studying the greats.
Beethoven did it - he studied Bach scores; Mozart did it - he studied
Haydn; Dizzy did it - he studied Eldridge; Bird did it - he studied
Hodges. Don't take my word for it that chord/scale/modes/whatever is
notihng but a minor addendum. Trust Hawk, Hodges, Bird, Mingus,
Trane, Coleman - everyone you ever wanted to sound like. They were
hip. You should be, too.
To put it another way, there are only 12 notes. John Coltrane and
Kenny G play the same 12 notes, you dig? It's how you play them, and
the answer to that is on CD. Copy the syntax - the notes are
immaterial.
maxle...@gmail.com
...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> IMO
>
> The only reason any student of jazz music should study chord-scales is
> to expand their ears and their technique, both their physical technique
> and their compositional/improvisational/mental techniqe.
> What they then do with their ears and their technique is their own business.
>
> Anybody who studies chord-scales but has never figured out anything by
> ear off of a record will never learn how to improvise, whether it be in
> jazz or rock or any other style of music.
What he said.