Was Charlie Parker the Culprit Behind the Chord-Scales?

[pamosmusic]

This is circular reasoning.

Heres my definition of chord scales.

Doesnt that apply to everything?

Not according to Charlie Parker.

Did he actually say that?

We don’t know.

And what does it have to do with chord scales?

Heres my definition of chord scales.

Doesnt that apply to everything?

[brent.h]

Parker was essentially a riff player.

I read this somewhere too. He had easily like 50-60+ fragments in his back pocket.

[Tal_175]

But I think it is slightly different than your examples in that Parker already had vocabulary that he made slight changes to as opposed to making something up with the chord scales as the primary building blocks to draw on.

To be fair I didn't make such a strong claim.

[Tal_175]

This is circular reasoning.

Heres my definition of chord scales.

Doesnt that apply to everything?

Not according to Charlie Parker.

Did he actually say that?

We don’t know.

And what does it have to do with chord scales?

Heres my definition of chord scales.

Doesnt that apply to everything?

The point is actually fairly simple. Maybe come back to it again when you feel less defensive about it, or not?

[charlieparker]

I read this somewhere too. He had easily like 50-60+ fragments in his back pocket.

Yeah. What do you think about Lester Young? To my ears less so than Bird.

[charlieparker]

To be fair I didn't make such a strong claim.

Your example of the blues player using the blues scale to create riffs implied this for me. Like I said we are mainly arguing about emphasis, IMO, in other words, how important is the chord scale of the moment to the melody that was constructed.

[Tal_175]

how important is the chord scale of the moment to the melody that was constructed.

"I found that by using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes, I could play the thing I’d been hearing. I came alive."

[pamosmusic]

Your example of the blues player using the blues scale to create riffs implied this for me. Like I said we are mainly arguing about emphasis, IMO, in other words, how important is the chord scale of the moment to the melody that was constructed.

This is the important distinction.

And I also think it's useful to bring back what Christian said about a concept of "chord-scales" really being dependent on what someone conceives of as "the chod of the moment" in the first place. The classic example being that Parker was pretty well know to treat ii-Vs as a block.

[Christian Miller]

(May not be the right place for this, but yeah.)

I don't know about other players, but Lester Young likes to 'shred' pentatonics in small bursts on super speedy swing tunes.

I'm guessing that he does this so that he doesn't have to think too much at a burning tempo. Frees up bandwidth for more important moments in the tune.

For 'shredding' in major keys, he'll use the major 6th pentatonic (C, D, E, G, A) and in the minor keys, he'll use the minor 6th pentatonic (C, D, Eb, G, A).

The Maj 6 pent. is easy for us guitarists because of how its 'symmetry and logic'. The Min 6 pent., however, is quite challenging if we try playing it like the Maj 6 pent. i.e. 2 notes per string. Many weird stretchy bits, but being able to shred this scale straight up and down will get you very close to that Lester Young sound.

I'm not sure about if Prez thought about melodic minor on minor tunes.

From what I have heard, he seems to use a combination of the following devices:

#1: The 1, 2, b3, 4, 5 scale (his most frequently used device)

#2: The 1, 2, b3, 5, 6 pentatonic

#3: The basic 1-b3-5 triad

#4: Ascending a scale/arpeggio then descending in 3rds

#5: Ascending octave glissando, then falling to the nearest lower chord tone of the tonic 6th chord. (E.g. play Eb and slide it one octave up to high Eb, then fall to C). Prez got this from Beiderbeck and Trumbauer.

Sometimes he might use the b6 or natural 7, but these are usually passing tones and not given a lot of attention.

Both he and Charlie Christian like to sub in minor 6 and even m(maj7). I don’t think either of them use it in the familiar altered position, but Charlie uses it as a b7 sub on V as does Django and I’m certain I can find a Lester example if I look (maybe a tiny bit in LBG?) and both use it on the 7th chord. The ‘tritones minor’ is the missing link here. Swing musicians used the tritone substitution tho. So the missing link is no doubt on records out there.

(I call this applied minor.)

Tristano WORSHIPPED these two musicians. It wouldn’t surprise me if the melodic minor stuff came from his studies of them, as well as Bird of course. (Which by the way works a bit different from modern chord scale theory.)

The augmented on b7 sound I associate with Billy Strayhorn and A Train and Chelsea Bridge. Put minor with augmented and you just about have it. I’m not sure when the next step - using a minor scale to join up the chord tones comes in, but again to go by Peter Ind, Lennie had it in the late 40s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I understand chord-scales as a descriptive notion. Over a given chord, the chord tones + extensions treated as a note collection to be used in melodic and chord construction. It is not a practice mindset, it is not a prescription of how you play these notes.

Any disagreements?

My point was, if we assume that the quote belongs to Charlie Parker, then it would mean that he was considering the deliberate use of melodic material based on the extensions of a chord (9, 11, 13 variations) a novelty at the time. So on a given chord, he would be deliberately utilizing the chord's extensions along with it's chord tones. The extensions wouldn't always be arpeggiated necessarily. Though not sure if that's relevant to the notion of chord-scales.

So it doesn't seem to me like crazy leap that the quote (if true) indicates a change in how jazz musicians conceptualized what to play over chords which so happens to correspond to the notion of chord-scales.

There’s plenty of older players who had no problem thinking in terms of upper structures and substitute triads and so on and looked askance the whole chord scale thing. Examples include Johnny Smith and Carol Kaye. Guitarists obviously tended to think chordally. Pianists too of course. I believe it was a guitarist (Biddy Fleet?) who helped shape Parker’s foundational understanding of harmony. Dizzy emphasised the importance of horn players learning the piano.

Otoh, according to Ritchie Hart at least, chord scale theory started as a way to teach horn players who didn’t play a chordal instrument about harmony. Makes sense - put it in a scale, easier for a melodic instrument to understand.

So, no extended chords =/= chord scales. They seem to be conceptually distinct in the minds of musicians historically even if it seems obvious to link them today.

But linking chords and scales is the basic conceit of chord scale theory, right? As Nettles and Graf put it ‘two sides of the same coin’. That was an innovative idea at the time.

(Barry was a rare example of someone who thought primarily in scales and not in extended chords otoh.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Nb - both the Lydian Chromatic Concept and Tristano school include scales with more than seven notes. I think the seven note chord scale thing is probably a later development.

Otoh Jerry Coker’s Improvising Jazz (1963) includes a recognisable form of chord scale theory that notably omits the melodic minor modes while at the same discussing the extended and altered dominants and also the diminished scale. It also has no discussion of avoid notes. I would say it reflects post-bop playing practice, actually.

(Also some cite Schillinger as a sort of proto CST system.)

My educated guess is that while players used scale concepts in playing, I think it probably took until Berklee’s accreditation in 1970 until all these threads were integrated into CST proper.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

There’s plenty of older players who had no problem thinking in terms of upper structures and substitute triads and so on and looked askance the whole chord scale thing.

Am I correct in my understanding of what you are saying that if a player said, "I just realized that I really like the sound of the extensions over minor chords. So over Dmin7, I utilize the notes E, G and B along with the chord tones and it sounds awesome." it would be inaccurate to think of what they are describing as a chord scale?

[Tal_175]

(Barry was a rare example of someone who thought primarily in scales and not in extended chords otoh.)

Interestingly a lot of his concept of how to play jazz was based on Charlie Parker.

So, no extended chords =/= chord scales. They seem to be conceptually distinct in the minds of musicians historically even if it seems obvious to link them today.

That is sort of my point when I say that the quote suggests an early evolution of the concept.

[Christian Miller]

Interestingly a lot of his concept of how to play jazz was based on Charlie Parker.

I’d go further. If say almost all of it was and that which wasn’t was based on Bud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Am I correct in my understanding of what you are saying that if a player said, "I just realized that I really like the sound of the extensions over minor chords. So over Dmin7, I utilize the notes E, G and B along with the chord tones and it sounds awesome." it would be inaccurate to think of what they are describing as a chord scale?

Ok this definition of Chord scale theory is from John Kokur and is basically the same as Nettles and Graf that I can’t cut and paste.

“Chord-Scale Theory is an approach to improvising that relates chords to scales. The name “Chord-Scale Theory” comes from the idea that the notes of a thirteenth chord can be rearranged as a seven-note scale.”

So if we use this definition, no, not necessarily. These notes could be conceptualised purely as part of a chord, not as part of a scale. So E G B in this understanding are also chord tones.

We could make inferences on the exact nature of the line in question, how are the notes arranged for example?

Which is your cue to give us some musical examples I suppose, and get away from the meaningless hypotheticals.

The rearrangement aspect but may seem obvious but is not a conception that all or perhaps most musicians seem to have used before the current era (since 1960s/70s)

Without that rearrangement aspect you have, well, chord theory.

Older musicians would certainly say that’s a necessary aspect of chord scale theory. (That and silly names for everything.)

Again it seems like the sort of thing you would do if you wanted to teach extended harmony to horn players.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

That is sort of my point when I say that the quote suggests an early evolution of the concept.

I would say that’s your interpretation. I don’t see that being said in the text.

But in a real sense, I also don’t care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

I would say that’s your interpretation. I don’t see that being said in the text.

But in a real sense, I also don’t care.

I am getting conflicting signals, you say you don't care, but than you seem to care enough to reply.
It seems like you were saying that to a modern eye, it is natural to see them as linked.

[Tal_175]

Ok this definition of Chord scale theory is from John Kokur and is basically the same as Nettles and Graf that I can’t cut and paste.

“Chord-Scale Theory is an approach to improvising that relates chords to scales. The name “Chord-Scale Theory” comes from the idea that the notes of a thirteenth chord can be rearranged as a seven-note scale.”

So if we use this definition, no, not necessarily.

The distinction between associating a collection of notes with a chord as available note choices vs rearranging them in a scale seems a bit contrived to me.
So the person who said, "I just realized that I really like the sound of the extensions over minor chords. So over Dmin7, I utilize the notes E, G and B along with the chord tones and it sounds awesome." would be talking about a different concept than chord-scales because they didn't describe it as a 7 note scale?

[Christian Miller]

I am getting conflicting signals, you say you don't care, but than you seem to care enough to reply.
It seems like you were saying that to a modern eye, it is natural to see them as linked.

Obviously I care a lot about the history of jazz harmony and how people thought about things back then. Things I don’t care about include a quote that cannot be attributed to bird, and what he may read between the lines of something he may or may not have said.

I hope the historical info I have given may help give some context to the discussion but when it comes down to it, I don’t ascribe much importance to the quote, and I don’t think it provides any more information than we could glean from, you know, looking into his music.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

The distinction between associating a collection of notes with a chord as available note choices vs rearranging them in a scale seems a bit contrived to me.
So the person who said, "I just realized that I really like the sound of the extensions over minor chords. So over Dmin7, I utilize the notes E, G and B along with the chord tones and it sounds awesome." would be talking about a different concept than chord-scales because they didn't describe it as a 7 note scale?

Yes

I mean maybe on one level it’s potayto potahto, but i do think CST influenced players have a quite specific approach compared to more old school players that shows up in the lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Yes

I mean maybe on one level it’s potayto potahto, but i do think CST influenced players have a quite specific approach compared to more old school players that shows up in the lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes agreed.

Everything is contrived unless you're going to go with "it's all the same twelve notes, baby." Anything else is an arbitrary framework, and how you contrive it is the interesting part.

I mean ... here's a Dmaj9(#11). You say it's a lydian chord and that calling it an E/D is just a way of articulating the lydian chord. I say it's E/D and the "lydian scale" is just the helpful addition of that missing C# as a passing note. It's a chicken or the egg situation, and the interesting thing is how one of those interpretations leads to a different result than the other. Which is correct or original is kind of a red herring.

[Tal_175]

To me the key notion of a chord-scale is the chord centric view of the available scale notes in the context of a chord. So if Charlie Parker said he liked using extensions of a chord (along with the chord tones) over a chord, what we learn from that is that he had a chord centric view of the available notes as opposed to seeing these notes from the point of view of the scale that defines the key (whether that's always evident in his playing is a different story).

It seems like some consider the notion of chord-scales as a package that comes with a certain mindset and language. I think that's because the notion was crystalized in the 60's so it's associated with the more modern language. But chord-scales are agnostic of how one melodically or harmonically uses them. I find them very useful for bebop style arpeggiations from upper chord tones for example. One could use the chord-scale view just as easily to play over chords of non-functional tunes. They are completely neutral to how one uses them.

Of course Charlie Parker used these available notes differently than many modern players but that was because of the stylistic differences of his era. In other words Charlie Parker could've had the notion of the dominant scale and still played his lines the same way. There is no contradiction there. He could still use upper arpeggios for line building with that view. Ask Barry Harris (well, you can't now).

[pamosmusic]

To me the key notion of a chord-scale is the chord centric view of the available scale notes in the context of a chord.

Ah … see I think this is the disconnect. If you were to poll a random assortment of jazz dorks, I think they would pretty overwhelmingly say the opposite of this.

Chord scales being a scale-centric view of the available notes in the context of the chord. Otherwise … why take the time to organize them and conceptualize them as a scale.

Again … I think in a very chord scale way to play bebop stuff so I’m with you as far as their being sort of agnostic as to how you choose to use them. But I think your orientation here is counter to most other jazz players

[Christian Miller]

Yes agreed.

Everything is contrived unless you're going to go with "it's all the same twelve notes, baby." Anything else is an arbitrary framework, and how you contrive it is the interesting part.

I mean ... here's a Dmaj9(#11). You say it's a lydian chord and that calling it an E/D is just a way of articulating the lydian chord. I say it's E/D and the "lydian scale" is just the helpful addition of that missing C# as a passing note. It's a chicken or the egg situation, and the interesting thing is how one of those interpretations leads to a different result than the other. Which is correct or original is kind of a red herring.

I don’t think it’s of no interest - it’s more that with Parker it’s hard to substantiate. You’d be on firmer ground with someone like Warne Marsh, Jimmy Raney or even Dizzy where we have more of an idea of how they thought about music. And this does tend to help with understanding what they play.

But then there’s plenty of players who claimed not to have a theoretical model at all. Which is super interesting when analysing Blue Mitchell’s lines on Nica’s Dream. Blue was purely an ear player. Yet every single time he plays the melodic minor etc. So, there’s a philosophical conundrum.

I tend to go with what seems like the simplest explanation of what’s going on. I don’t see much in the way of chord scales in Birds playing. Plenty of chords, some of them extended and plenty of scales going up and down, but not so much chord scales in the sense that Allan Holdsworth used them or whoever.

People who are really into bird and bop exclusively tend to not be chord scale people fwiw. It’s not really relevant to that music. Raney seems to confirm that chord scale ideas were not really in place or ‘fully worked out’ at least until later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Ah … see I think this is the disconnect. If you were to poll a random assortment of jazz dorks, I think they would pretty overwhelmingly say the opposite of this.

Chord scales being a scale-centric view of the available notes in the context of the chord. Otherwise … why take the time to organize them as a scale.

Again … I think in a very chord scale way to play bebop stuff so I’m with you as far as their being sort of agnostic as to how you choose to use them. But I think your orientation here is counter to most other jazz players

Well, I though in my post the word "centric" was prostituting itself to hold the whole logic of the paragraph together but turns out it was the confusing part.
So what I mean by chord centric is this.
D7b9 -> Gmin
Here the chord centric view of D7b9 would be seeing the scale notes as they relate to the chord D7 (some would call it Phrygian dominant).
Scale of the key view would be G harmonic minor.