Chordal Jazz theory VS Scalar Jazz Theory

sk8terguy316 · #1 05-04-2007, 08:11 PM

I am not entirely sure if there has been such a topic in the past, but I would like to start one. I would like to have a discussion on which method for Jazz is more effective and which method for jazz you personally prefer? I shall start out by saying that I own a substantial amount of Carol Kaye's Jazz books and I am always interested in progressing further, and believe that if scalar studies is the way to go I will go that way along with my Carol Kaye method. I am interested in discussing different educational methods such as Mark Levine's "Jazz theory Book" and/or Mike Steinel's "Building A Jazz Vocabulay" and other related books as opposed to the chordal way of playing. I am interested in different teacher's methods and why they believe them to be more effective as opposed to other methods. I hope that this thread does not go off-track with petty arguments, but more a well-mannered discussion over which method you prefer and why.
Finally, I do apologize if there has been a thread like this in the past or if it is an extremely repetitive thread, but I am hoping for this thread to become a fairly large educational discussion on Jazz theory that people can reference and use for information, Thank you very much.

fingers · #2 05-04-2007, 10:09 PM

I'm not sure I exactly understand the question but here goes.

I am on a personal crusade to vanquish jazz improvisation from the idea of 1:1 scale/chord relationships. To me improvisation is about playing what you hear not seeing a certain chord and playing a lick based on its companion scale.

I use Marc Levine's book extensively with my students. I think that in order to construct really good lines you need a firm (almost instinctual) understand of theory. The important thing is getting this stuff in your ears. This is the one of the reasons I like Marc Levine's book so much. There are tons of real world examples. Every concept has examples.

sk8terguy316 · #3 05-04-2007, 10:50 PM

Thank you very much for the reply. I am basicaly saying, Do you prefer chordal or scalar jazz playing. Which do you teach and why. You answered appropriatley.

fingers · #4 05-05-2007, 09:33 AM

I just think the question is strange. As I see it there is no scalar vs chordal thing.

Every chord suggests a pitch collection. I hesitate to use scale names because I don't like the idea of Dm7 means play D dorian. That is a gross oversimplification IMO. That said the chord symbol itself gives you some idea of the "scale". D7#11 when broken into a scale looks like Lydian Dominant. I just shy away from teaching students to see a chord and automatically think a scale name.

This is the way I look at it and the way I teach my students to look at it. In a song every chord has a function. Every chord also has a relationship to the melody. Those are key to know first. Sometimes these functions are less obvious but I think it is very important to try to get inside the head of the composer. I try to scare up several recorded versions of the tune. I listen, ad nauseam, to them. Ed and Bill talked about methods of learning tunes so I won't go there but I will say that it is VERY important to get these relationships in your ears. Just knowing them by rote is pretty useless. Ear training is also VERY important in this. If you don't have a method you like I can suggest some.

My crusade is to play songs not sets of changes. We play music not math. Try to hear and react to the big picture. That is what improvisation is.

The other key to this is playing with other musicians and try stuff out as much as possible.

frichter · #5 05-07-2007, 11:11 AM

Well said fingers.

I would like to hear some of the ear training methods you suggest.

Peace

Aaron Saunders · #6 05-07-2007, 11:19 AM

I think it's extremely self-limiting to view these as mutually exclusive concepts. You should understand both and use both. It's like asking bow vs. pizz. Doesn't make any sense.

Michael Glynn · #7 05-07-2007, 12:00 PM

I think Fingers has some really good points. Two important concepts he mentions are "function" and "the big picture." You should never look at a chord just on its own, but rather look at the function it is playing in the piece at that point. You have to think about its function on a number of different levels: from its place in the immediate surrounding chords, to its place in the song as a whole, and, most importantly, its place relative to what everyone is actually playing at the time.

For example, say you are playing a song and the chord is an F7. If you just look at it on its own, you might just think: F mixolydian scale and the chord tones are F, A, C, Eb. Now, let's zoom out a little. You see that the previous chord was a C-7 and the next chord is a Bb7. Now you have a little better idea of context, as you can see that the F7 is the 5 in a 2-5-1 progression, and the 1 chord is a dominant chord, not a major chord. Since there is an Ab in the Bb7 chord, maybe you can use that in addition to the A natural that is the "proper" note in the F mixolydian scale. OK, now let's zoom out more. Hey! you're playing a Bb blues. Maybe, even though you are currently on an F7 chord, you could be playing a Bb, or a Db or something else that gives your solo that Bb blues feel, depending on what you played leading up to this point. Now let's zoom out some more--your band mates thought it would be hip to modulate up a half-step and you are actually playing a B blues now, in spite of the chart being in Bb. That means the chord is actually an F#7! If you are just looking at the chart and not using your ears, you could be playing something really out there!

All that being said, I think another important concept, at least for me, is to think of certain important pitches I want to land on, or emphasize, and how I am going to get to them. I suppose this is more of the chordal approach than the scalar approach, but really it is something different--a melodic approach. When you are soloing (or playing a bass line for that matter) you are not really playing chords or scales, those are simply the framework that lies underneath what you are playing, you are playing a melodic line.

Say I am on that F7 chord (one measure) leading into the Bb7. For whatever reason, I am hearing that I want to start on an A on the F7 chord and end up on a D below that on the downbeat of the Bb7 chord. I could keep it completely within the mixolydian scale and play, say, A-Bb-A-G-F-G-F-Eb-D (all 8th notes). Or maybe I am hearing a more chromatic approach, so I play A-Ab-G-Gb-F-E-Eb-C#-D. Or any of a million other possibilities. The point is I am hearing where I want to start and where I want to end up, and how I want to bridge that gap. And just like the way you should look at chords in a song on a number of different levels, you should look at what you are playing melodically on a number of levels, too: from the immediate context of the notes on either side of the current note, to their place in your solo as a whole, and the the piece as a whole, including what everyone else has played and is playing.

fingers · #8 05-07-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Glynn

All that being said, I think another important concept, at least for me, is to think of certain important pitches I want to land on, or emphasize, and how I am going to get to them. I suppose this is more of the chordal approach than the scalar approach, but really it is something different--a melodic approach. When you are soloing (or playing a bass line for that matter) you are not really playing chords or scales, those are simply the framework that lies underneath what you are playing, you are playing a melodic line.

Say I am on that F7 chord (one measure) leading into the Bb7. For whatever reason, I am hearing that I want to start on an A on the F7 chord and end up on a D below that on the downbeat of the Bb7 chord. I could keep it completely within the mixolydian scale and play, say, A-Bb-A-G-F-G-F-Eb-D (all 8th notes). Or maybe I am hearing a more chromatic approach, so I play A-Ab-G-Gb-F-E-Eb-C#-D. Or any of a million other possibilities. The point is I am hearing where I want to start and where I want to end up, and how I want to bridge that gap. And just like the way you should look at chords in a song on a number of different levels, you should look at what you are playing melodically on a number of levels, too: from the immediate context of the notes on either side of the current note, to their place in your solo as a whole, and the the piece as a whole, including what everyone else has played and is playing.

This is right on. I think calling it a Melodic Approach is perfect.

An important thing too is that the folks you are playing with might challenge you harmonically or rhythmically. I look at improvisation as a conversation. This is why I suggest playing as much as possible with people. Improvisations sound strange and forced if you are not listening to eachother. I had a band director in school that used to say "you guys are all playing in the same room at the same time but not necessarily together".

The ear training method I use with my students is Essential Ear Training For Today's Musician by Steve Prosser. It is from Berklee Press. I think you can get it from Lemur.

jgbass · #9 05-08-2007, 06:18 PM

Sk8terguy,

I think I understand perfectly what your question is because I have had the experience of learning from Carol's teaching materials. I read and participated in her forum for many years in the past, I studied many of her materials, and I had some private lessons from her as well. I was, I guess what you would call, socialized in the chordal style of playing jazz. Along the way, I also took up DB.

For all I have studied of Carol's materials, from the lead sheets that go with the Standards I and II CDs, her improv book, the book of Pro Jazz Phrases, etc. I still think, conceptionally in terms of what chord I am playing most often, if I think of anything. I've never really gotten into the scale concept in any depth. But here are some things that I have learned along the way.

As a DB player, I cannot escape having the knowledge of scales. Once I really started working on scales, major, harmonic minor, and melodic minor, I felt like I was filling in many of the missing pieces. I studied scales for classical reasons, but also to get me into a future jazz studies university program. No, scales are not just for fishes, they are the foundation of many styles of music, not separate from chords, but part of an integrated whole. I would be lost if I didn't know them thoroughly. It also helps me to communicate with other musicians.

Next, I found that applying jazz phrases to tunes was of much value, but not the whole picture. Once I also started integrated some melodic concepts, i.e. my teacher's insistence that I really learn the melody of the tune and use some of its ideas in my soloing, my solos really improved. People noticed. I was playing more than phrases. My solos had that melodic quality that I personally like. I am not a chops player. I'd rather do simple and melodic solos. But, that's my preference. Furthermore, it occurred to me recently, that alot of these Pro Jazz Phrases in her fine book seem to have some scalar feel to them.

Next, Carol teaches the concepts of 50's jazz and Great American Songbook tunes. I love this music, one of my favorites, but this is just a slice of jazz, this is not the whole of jazz. When we move into later era jazz, the application of modal concepts is perfectly valid. Modes are not nonsense, as CK would have you believe. Some jazz tunes, just as other style tunes, whether they are classical or pop, are truly written in a modal perspective.

One thing that helped me immensely is this, and if you don't have access to Mark Levine's "The Jazz Piano Book" then maybe go to a store and read page 59 on the topic Why Scales? Scales in jazz theory were not an invention of rock and rollers, as CK might have you believe although maybe some of the rock turned jazz teachers use this concept. Many fine educators have used these scalar concepts all along. I have even talked with a few older jazz folks and they developed their fine playing on scales, not exclusively chords.

I went to some clinics with an accomplished jazz pianist and he taught all this scale theory and was able to apply it to analyzing his transcriptions. A very accomplished academic person and a fine musician. But he even said that learning all these scales was not the be all and end all of the process. He said that we learn scales so we can forget scales. What I think he meant is something similar to what Carol has along the lines of playing without thinking, that when we reach this point. we have learned our stuff. But, his way was with scales, her way was with chords. As far as I am concerned, both are valid, and the scalar approach is not necessarily boring either. I play with some find musicians who learned this way, and I think many of their solos are alive and interesting.

Much as I am grateful for everything I learned from CK, and it has been immense, it is not the only way to learn jazz. As in any situation, I am wary of anyone who insists their way is the only way to do something and decides anyone's elses is of no value or downright wrong. That's getting into some scary ways of thinking.

My current jazz teacher does not use a scalar approach. She thinks transcribing is of utmost importance, and, as far as learning tunes, many of my current teacher's concepts are very similar to what is on CK Jazz Improv DVD in her section on learning tunes. I would also be wary of someone who disses transcription. How do we learn jazz? By listening, and if we need to use a tool to learn to listen better, I cannot think of a better way than transcription. Just wish I had the time to do more of it. My current teacher studied with a very well-known jazz person. His assignments were to transcribe, transcribe, transcribe. That worked for my teacher.

The chordal approach and other approaches do not have to be an either/or proposition at all. I felt like that for a long time but ended up adjusting my thinking on this.

I learn from everyone I play music with and study with, toss what I don't like, keep what I do like, but, more than anything, I try to keep an open mind.

I totally understand why you think this has to be either/or, but I don't think any method of learning jazz has to be pitted against the other as either/or. There's much to learn from any approach. Somewhere in some jazz music theory thread, a long time ago, the pros and cons of the scalar and chordal method were discussed, but I wouldn't know where to start looking for it. Maybe you can find it.

This is a great thread. Glad you started it. Hope it keeps going.

fingers · #10 05-09-2007, 08:29 AM

I'll have to check out some of her books. I am unfamiliar with talking about improv in those terms.

jgbass · #11 05-09-2007, 08:29 PM

Fingers,

The book is called Jazz Improv for Bass. There's also a DVD on Jazz Soloing , other things too. Think you can only order at her website or on ebay though. Interesting concepts of chordal subs, back cycles, constructing improv ideas using stacked triads, diminished runs, ii, V7m I ideas, Bird patterns, a few written out improvs (Green Dolphin Street and Blue Bossa) and some great transcriptions of Joe Pass patterns to apply to bass, rhythm changes transcriptions, blues patterns.

I guess this is stuff that really different, at least in terminology, from what a lot of you here have studied previously.

Ritchie Ray · #12 05-10-2007, 05:26 PM

Bunny Brunel's Soloing Secrets - applies the scale forms to the chord possibilities....besides, it's coming from a guy that played with Chick Corea....can't go wrong on this book!

sk8terguy316 · #13 05-12-2007, 11:11 AM

By the way, thank you for all the great replies. I am not trying to make this a one or the other debate as it sounds I may be, but more of a, in the beginning or, for the most part which one is more effective. Another question to everybody and jgbass, do you find the "The Jazz Piano Book" or "The Jazz Theory Book" more effective in learning the concepts of jazz, improvisation, harmony and all the other elements of jazz? or should I get both eventually? Thank you very much for all responds

fingers · #14 05-12-2007, 11:13 AM

My understanding is the Jazz Piano book came first and the Jazz Theory book was a retooled version.

Personally I use the Jazz Theory book and find it more than I need.

lowerclef · #15 05-12-2007, 11:54 AM

I took private lessons from Carol and own most of her materials as well. I swear by her method. It worked really well for me. It's about learning a vocabulary of patterns to use over chords, learning how chords move around, and what all the corresponding substitutions are. It opened up my ears immensely and helped me reach a whole new plateau.

I went to Berklee in my younger years and tried to get into "chord/scale relationships", but I had ZERO success with it. Not saying it can't be done, but for me, the chordal method is the way to go. It simplified a lot of concepts for me that I was missing.

The best part is, her books are all really cheap, and all full of killer material, so you really can't lose. I have also heard a lot about the Mark Levine book on this forum, but have never actually seen it. May check it out someday.

Andy Allen · #16 05-12-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowerclef

I took private lessons from Carol and own most of her materials as well. I swear by her method. It worked really well for me. It's about learning a vocabulary of patterns to use over chords, learning how chords move around, and what all the corresponding substitutions are. It opened up my ears immensely and helped me reach a whole new plateau.

I went to Berklee in my younger years and tried to get into "chord/scale relationships", but I had ZERO success with it. Not saying it can't be done, but for me, the chordal method is the way to go. It simplified a lot of concepts for me that I was missing.

The best part is, her books are all really cheap, and all full of killer material, so you really can't lose. I have also heard a lot about the Mark Levine book on this forum, but have never actually seen it. May check it out someday.

I have some of her books, and as you say they seem to be full of great material. But they are rather short on information about that material and of practical ways of using it. They look like "lesson-notes" and I'm sure that a lesson (or two, or three) with her would clarify the books, and make them much more useful.

Andy

jgbass · #17 05-12-2007, 07:39 PM

Sk8aterguy,

I only have experience with Mark Levine's Jazz Piano book. I'm only beginning and its slow going with my limited jazz piano skills. So far, its a lot about piano voicings. I want to have some good, basic jazz piano skills, so that's my purpose in studying this book. Don't think of this having a lot to do with playing bass, except for the idea of having a better understanding of what the pianist is doing. Its helpful for that piece.

Andy,

If you don't have Carol's Jazz Improv book, I think it is full of practical, verbal information on how to get started applying jazz phrases and substitutions for soloing.

Lowerclef,

Glad to hear your story about success with Carol's teaching materials. These methods truly work and I think one can be more than a competent jazz player just studying her material.

lowerclef · #18 05-13-2007, 02:51 PM

Thanks!

Andy's right, though: taking the private lessons helped IMMENSELY. I had limited success doing it on my own, as I already owned her books, but with the lessons, there was a real breakthrough. Having my questions answered directly from the source made all the difference in the world!

lowerclef · #19 05-13-2007, 02:53 PM

And forgot to mention: I think she may be moving back to the LA area this year, in case you're interested...

Andy Allen · #20 05-14-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowerclef

And forgot to mention: I think she may be moving back to the LA area this year, in case you're interested...

That's good news - she used to live not far from here. It also means that she'll be back playing in L.A., so I'll be able to catch her at the local jazz watering holes.

I'll try to get in touch and will schedule a lesson when she's back in town.

Andy