Theory from Carol Kaye

[philwood]

Stumbled across this about 4-5months ago from carol kaye, and have being applying to my practising and can honestly say its made me improve no end. Just thought id throw it in here -

'I think that too much emphasis is placed on scales and hardly none place on getting chordal tones together. I decry the ignorant way they teach scales as "the only way", as they have not the facility to teach chordal tones, nor the teaching experience to do that. Even fine string bass teachers teach chordal tones, but hardly enough elec. bass teachers. I never teach scales until a couple years later on in the lessons. They should get their chordal tones together first, not the piano way of learning "scales first" on the elec. bass which plays according to "chords", not solo work, to back up a band, or even to play some blues lines for immediate jamming. You're correct in the sense that you do learn it all, but there is literally almost nothing out there about chordal tones and the reason being is ignorance. Have had so many students who can play a million scales and cannot play with a band, as they don't know what to play and surely cannot solo. This has brought this lack of chordal tone approach way of teaching to my attention in the later years. They need more pattern work for the rock-funk too, as very few have the multitude of ideas you need to create good funky patterns (speaking of notes here, not slapping which isn't done in LA much anymore, it's sort of passe here). In just a few lessons, one can get their chordal approaches together to function very well in bands, and that is the ideal. As I get them in either funk (notes) or jazz soloing, I do give them the necessary two scales (only) that they need.
The arpeggios, chordal tones, are where it's at, also the stacked triads. Modes are very limited, they use the ii6 chord exclusively and don't flow at all like the chordal scale notes, and audiences are now so tired of hearing that limited self-serving musician stuff, it's a good way to close a business up I think. Good jazz is from the subs, the patterns, the pivot b5 lines, so many creative chordal sub things, plus the flow of the communications, the silences, the statements/answers (some call this "call and response") it's an art form, not a show-off of fast licks, but a way of communicating with each other and the audience.

Bird took the classical studies and started playing the jazz around the chordal notes and mathematical substitutions from the altered chords: A7-9 has the same notes as Bbo, things like that. Blues and rock etc. have a slightly different theory setup, blues licks which are derived from the minor chord (Cm aka as Eb7 or Ebm) which is really is the C7#9 chord with passing tones, this is not jazz subs at all, nor the stacked triads of Jazz (i.e. G7 is stacked in triad form: G Bm-5 Dm F Am C Em etc., thus you use the Dm7 for G7, you use the Fmaj7 for G7 etc.) and all the mathematical genius that goes with that. Bird and others like Horace Silver, Hampton Hawes, other innovators like that would be in the class of Albert Einstein (or really Einstein's wife who did so much for Albert) if they had have been scientists, it's mathematics in jazz, in 2's and 3's, not hard if you know your chordal tones, but takes awhile. '

Edited April 28, 2009 by philwood

[YouMa]

Shes a fantastic bass player one of best,i think she gets bashed to much because of the jamerson thing.

[XB26354]

Anyone ever see that green Carol Kaye book, I think it was Electric Bass Lines Vol. 5? There was a transcribed line/solo in there she played with an orchestra. My best advice is don't try learning it because it was very, very hard. Any bass player capable of that deserves respect, no matter what politics went on about who played on what. That and the number of tracks she actually did play on.

[The Funk]

[quote name='philwood' post='474360' date='Apr 28 2009, 04:57 PM']they use the ii6 chord exclusively[/quote]

Errrm... guilty.

[51m0n]

[quote name='The Funk' post='474533' date='Apr 28 2009, 08:01 PM']Errrm... guilty.[/quote]

oops +1

[Bilbo]

Not sure I get what she is driving at. I struggle to see how you can explain chord toens without understanding teh scales they derive from and vice versa. Her criticisma of convetional classical training are credible as they really don't bother with chords but, if I am trying to explain chord tones, I relate it to a scale. The two are symbiotic.

I have never heard any Kaye that I would class as memorable so have no opinion on her playing.

[philwood]

Well after studying some of her material shes saying that the Jazz musicians of the 40s and 50s always approached Jazz from Chord Tones and Chord Subs, Extentions, passing tones etc and they never thought of scales or modes, I wasnt around in the 40s and 50s so i cant comment!! But for me its certainly worked wonders in my playing after years upon years of approaching it from modes. Even my fellow musicians who i work with tell me my walking and soloing is alot more fresh and melodic, I dont know it might be wrong but its just worked for me so Im happy lol.

[redstriper]

I really wish I understood any of the above

[The Funk]

I agree with Bilbo. I don't see the difference. I think what we might be discussing is emphasis or focus.

[iamthewalrus]

I agree with Bilbo's statement about chords & scales - when I first started learning to play, it was a case of learning that chords come from scales. Looks like a case that CK is subscribing to Jeff Berlin's school of thought in terms of chord tones being ultra important.

CK's best bass moment is definitely the part on "Sloop John B" - an absolute classic (IMO of course).

Cheers,
iamthewalrus

[Simon]

[quote name='YouMa' post='474384' date='Apr 28 2009, 05:20 PM']i think she gets bashed to much because of the jamerson thing.[/quote]

Pffftt, outrageous claim she made. Lost a lot of respect from a lot of people I reckon. She certainly did herself no favours.

[chris_b]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='475098' date='Apr 29 2009, 02:11 PM']....I have never heard any Kaye that I would class as memorable so have no opinion on her playing....[/quote]
Good grief!!

[risingson]

Carol Kaye may have really pissed on some people's bonfires in the past, but that doesn't stop her from being one of the most influential bass players of all time. There was good reason for sound engineers for big film scores wanting Fender electric bass played with a pick on all of their tracks after they heard the likes of 'Mission Impossible'. She has also taught theory to the likes of the Pocarro brothers as well... her musical integrity isn't up for criticism in my book

[endorka]

[quote name='philwood' post='475114' date='Apr 29 2009, 02:28 PM']...shes saying that the Jazz musicians of the 40s and 50s always approached Jazz from Chord Tones and Chord Subs, Extentions, passing tones etc and they never thought of scales or modes, I wasnt around in the 40s and 50s so i cant comment...[/quote]

I've spoken to people who remember playing music from that era who would certainly back up her claim - for example, rather than spelling out a scale on the staff as is done on the Aebersold style playalongs, some arrangers of band big music would specify the notes the soloist was to use with arpeggios with the extended higher notes in the staff, e.g. C E G B D F# A rather than C D E F# G A B.

Sure it is a matter of emphasis... but I think it matters a lot.

Jennifer

[Bilbo]

[quote name='chris_b' post='475600' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:30 PM']Good grief!![/quote]

Sorry, mate, but the list of influential players I have not heard gets longer every year.

Bass names I have not listened to for more than a few moments

Larry Graham (if ever)
Carol Kaye
Jack Cassidy (Jefferson Airplane)
Victor Wooten
Oteil Burbridge (is that the spelling)
Cliff Williams
Tim Bogert (if ever)
The Jamaroquoi players - Zender and the bloke after him
Les Claypool
Jerry Jemmott
Louis Johnson
John Myung
Felix Pappalardi
Chuck Rainey....

The list goes on. I also haven't read much Dickens, Steinbeck, Mailer, Shakespeare, Huxley.....

I get by

I learned a long time ago that a great bass player does not make for great music. I bought 'Pet Sounds' recently to see what all the fuss was about and was not impressed. Don't like 'The White Album'. Legends are usually a minority interest! So sue me.

[The Funk]

[quote name='endorka' post='476136' date='Apr 30 2009, 04:11 PM']I've spoken to people who remember playing music from that era who would certainly back up her claim - for example, rather than spelling out a scale on the staff as is done on the Aebersold style playalongs, some arrangers of band big music would specify the notes the soloist was to use with arpeggios with the extended higher notes in the staff, e.g. C E G B D F# A rather than C D E F# G A B.

Sure it is a matter of emphasis... but I think it matters a lot.

Jennifer[/quote]

I'm sure you're right but would you be able to explain why? Or is that an unanswerable question?

I can see how sticking to chord tones and passing tones in the rhythm section can free up a soloist to harmonize the given chord any way they see fit, and the more a rhythm section defines it the less freedom that soloist has. Is there any more to it than that?

[philwood]

I completely agree Jennifer it does matter alot, Where as if I used to see a Am7 chord i might think A dorian for example i now think of the extended arpeggios i.e Cmaj7 Emin7 over the Am7 chord being played underneath. Now i know you still have exactly the same notes available as if you were thinking A Dorian but for me I just cant explain how much of an improvement ive seen since ive started thinking this way. It might just that i have a crap imagination and struggle with A dorian but thats just me personally. Each to there own and whatever works but because of this method im getting to the stage where I dont have to think any more and its freeing me up.
Sorry for rambling! just kind of hard to describe.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='475098' date='Apr 29 2009, 02:11 PM']Not sure I get what she is driving at. I struggle to see how you can explain chord [b]toens[/b] without understanding [b]teh[/b] scales they derive from and vice versa. Her [b]criticisma[/b] of [b]convetional[/b] classical training are credible as they really don't bother with chords but, if I am trying to explain chord tones, I relate it to a scale.[/quote]


Looks like a bit of one-handed typing going on to me!

I suspect a new Jazz CD and a box of Kleenex Mansize. You'll go blind Bilbo.

[endorka]

[quote name='The Funk' post='476184' date='Apr 30 2009, 05:01 PM']I'm sure you're right but would you be able to explain why?[/quote]

I find that placing the emphasis on chord tones tends to lead to more interesting solos and basslines; one practical example of this might be the use of "guide tones", i.e. the 3rd and the 7th, to create lines emphasising the colour of certain chords, and the connectness between chord changes. It could be argued that the use of chord tones and their extensions is just an expansion of this, or something that makes this type of playing initially more accessible.

Overemphasis of scales will lead to exactly that... a solo or line that sounds like it is built directly on a series of scales or modes that change with the chords. The result can sound disconnected, boring and unmusical, and is something that is fairly obvious to the ear. You hear it too often on jazz gigs.

On the other hand, there is nothing to stop someone who is very proficient in either method, or something else completely (for example improvising around the melody), in making interesting and connected music. I just think that some paths lead to a quicker emphasis on the important stuff.

Jennifer

[The Funk]

Thanks for that Jennifer!

I was reading something last night about the individual resolutions happening with the basic chord tones in a V-I change and I remember my old bass mentor constantly saying "it's all 3rds and 7ths".

It makes sense in my head now that as a bass player we should emphasise these things from time to time.

Edited April 30, 2009 by The Funk

[funkle]

I have taken lessons personally with both Carol Kaye and Jeff Berlin, and as you might expect I subscribe to their approaches.

...Which are both based on heavy use of chord tones. Both of them have emphasised this hugely to me.

My understanding has now progressed to the point where I look at a scale, work out how to harmonise it, and from that understand what the basic chord tones and chord tensions are, rather than viewing the scale in a straight 'linear' fashion.

It's a lot easier, I think, to look at a C maj chord and then think of the possible tensions (9, #11, 13) than always going 'C Ionian, C lydian' depending on what type of C maj chord is written. Although it's important to understand how the scale is constructed and to understand the basis of different scales, I find harmonising scales and working out the tensions for each chord to be more useful than playing a straight scale.

It's not that scales aren't important - they are - it's just that viewing them as chords + available tensions is more useful (for me) than looking at them in a linear 'scalar' fashion. It's all the same notes, after all.

But hey, I'm absolutely guaranteed to be biased, given who I've studied with.

Also, it's one thing to have the theoretical understanding; it's quite another to have practiced it all enough to have it under the fingers. I am a long way from competence yet...

__________________________________________________________

BTW, to the poster who says they look at A min and think of E min and C maj - that is an example of what is called a 'primary subordinate substitute'. For a major scale, the primary subordinate subs looks like this:

I - iii - vi ( Cmaj7 - Em7 - Am7)
IV - vii - ii (Fmaj7 - Am7 - Dm7)
V7 - viib5 - ii (G7 - Bm7b5 - Dm7)

The 'primary chords' are I, IV, and V7; the 'subordinate chords' are everything else.

It is of note that IV - vii - ii here could simply be thought of as I - iii - vi in a different key (F instead of C). That means I and IV can be thought of as always having the same primary subordinate subs, i.e. you could always treat a maj chord as a 'I'. So C maj will always have E min and A min as its primary subordinate subs, whether it functions as a I or a IV. This assumes that you are playing in major scale harmony, though.

My harmony teacher at Jeff's school said having these things under your fingers is one of the first steps to opening up your improvisational abilities when looking at chords. He was no small shakes himself at playing....

I'm getting through root, 1st, and 2nd inversions of the primary subordinate subs in all keys for the last month or so. It's slow. I'll add the 3rd inversion in a couple of weeks, in addition to the other stuff I'm doing. I have noted some small differences already.

Pete

Edited May 1, 2009 by funkle

[funkle]

The 'Theory and Technique' forum is a great place to hang out these days..... it's about the only forum I'm now hitting regularly! ^_^

[philwood]

Thanks for that Pete that helps alot and is very interesting to hear from someone who has studied with both personally, as Im only going through 3 or 4 of her books available on the website. What your saying is exactly what Ive been working on.
Another thing i noticed was for example if for e.g the Chord is a G7#5#9 I can play an Abmaj7 arpeggio over the top and it sounds incredible because it has all those tension notes and its such an easy way of producing a great sound which for someone of my little intelligence is great! Even over a normal G7 it would give me a b9, 11 and #5 and is great.
Did carol or jeff ever teach scales at all? In terms of learning all the modes for example?
Thanks

Edited May 1, 2009 by philwood

[Bilbo]

This is good stuff. There isn't anything here I didn't already know (except the terminology) but framing it is this way gives a different perspective on the relationships between chords which I can think about when I next get to play.

Good call!

[The Funk]

You guys and gals are blowing my mind. This is fun.