Article

Are chord-scales the answer?
Methods of teaching jazz

Graham Collier's attempt to disturb the good people of middle England: A paper presented at the Leeds International Jazz Education conference, April 2000.
Revised November 2002 for posting on the web.

Whether chord scales are the answer depends of course on the question. First, two quotes which sum up my stance towards jazz and jazz education. The first is from composer Pierre Schaffer: 'music in terms of sound, not notes, harmonies, chords.' The second, from educator John Paynter, 'the first step must be the understanding of the medium and its potential. We can only discover this through creative experiment.'
Many would argue that jazz is 'notes, harmonies, chords'. This is true up to a point and this point of view is reflected in many college jazz programmes and teaching methods. Broadly speaking, jazz as 'notes, harmonies, chords' is a definition of only one style of jazz, the middle period between the mid-1940s and the late 1950s. The necessity for a strong technique to play in this style is obvious and the idolisation of Charlie Parker is a very real part of jazz's history. The resurgence of interest in this kind of music during the past decade or more - largely because of the influence of Wynton Marsalis - continues to stress technical prowess as the main aim of a jazz musician. There is, seemingly, a holy grail of a major company record deal and huge media exposure waiting for those who achieve it. Well, perhaps. It has certainly worked for some - usually the photogenic ones!

issues

Naturally, I have no argument with people who want to acquire a perfect technique, nor with those who want to teach it. It is, after all, relatively easy. The methods were formalised in the early 1950s by such educators as Jerry Coker and there are now hundreds, if not thousands, of books and play-alongs to help. But there are some issues at stake here, in the professional world and in the world of jazz education. The main issue is that once the desired level of technical prowess is achieved it is most often used to serve a retro-jazz agenda, creating what one critic summed up as 'technically impressive but basically warmed-over goods'.
Undoubtedly this works for some. When I was at the Royal Academy of Music I had constant battles with one particular year of students because I, and other teachers, kept saying 'It's not good enough. If you're going to play in that style you have to remember that we've heard Blakey, we've heard Gillespie and the rest of your idols.' The students asked why we were always trying to compare and our reply was 'because we have to, we can't avoid it. And, most importantly, even if you could play as well as Lee Morgan - and you don't - it wouldn't help because he's already done it. What would help would be to do something creative with that style, with that tune.'
The fact that some of those students are now doing very well may prove me wrong, but it may also say something about the current state of the jazz world. One ex-student, in his early 20s and very impressive technically, was recently described as 'the best musicians on his instrument of any age, anywhere'. In my view the musician will have to mature considerably before that comment comes true. And so will the leader of a well known youth jazz orchestra who made the comment. He's old enough to know better, but is blinded by his self-interest.
So, perhaps I am wrong. There is an audience and critical acclaim for many who go down this path. But there is also an audience for other jazz musicians who may have the technique but do not necessarily use it. Who do not rely on technique as the sole weapon in their armoury. Whose interest is in jazz as sounds, not jazz only as a series of notes, harmonies and chords.
There is another side to this. There are many musicians who try to impress by playing the standard jazz repertoire - jazz as 'notes, harmonies, chords' - and fail because their technique is not up to it. These are often musicians who, when led in the right direction, will be able to create interesting music of their own, using the technique they have and not being frightened away by the sheer technical demands of what they are told is the only way to play jazz.

clarification

Two points of clarification: First, this is not an argument against the acquiring of technique. The ability for a jazz musician to play his or her instrument well should go without saying. But having it doesn't mean that you have to flaunt it. And there are ways of playing jazz where a lot can be said using simple methods. Most importantly, also, many players are scared off playing jazz by this stress on technical ability and the sheer terror of seeing a row of complicated chord symbols. Who among us hasn't seen a solo part passed anxiously up and down a young band's trumpet or trombone section as the players search for someone brave enough to have a go at an improvised solo.
Second, this is an appeal that we should be taking on board other areas of jazz's experience. Ideas from early jazz such as collective improvisation from the New Orleans style; improvised backings as in the head arrangements of the swing era big bands; individuality of sound as shown by many musicians in the pre-bop period.
Listen to any great jazz musician playing the melody of a ballad, perhaps Ben Webster's classic versions of 'Chelsea Bridge' with Gerry Mulligan. The tune is never played as written on the lead sheet, and almost every note has different qualities of texture to it. As good a lesson in what jazz is as any I know. (1)
The aspects of jazz performance I noted above - collective improvisation, improvised backings, individuality of sound - have all come back into jazz through what has been variously called 'free jazz', 'the avant-garde' and so on. Ironically, more than forty years after they became prominent, these terms, and the music associated with them, still seem to have the power to frighten. It's as though the Original Dixieland Jazz Band still had the power to scare musicians and audiences in the days of hard bop! This is not a plea for all our jazz to be noisy collective freak-outs, but a plea that we should be aware of the potential of the music, and be willing to explore areas other than what is seen as the norm.
The norm with the rhythm section is everybody playing all the time - and, too often, not listening to each other or to the soloist they are meant to be accompanying. This produces a kind of live play-along record. Jazz after the hard bop period showed us how the rhythm section can be used in a much looser way. The pulse, if it exists at all, is not necessarily played by all members of the section. And, if the music is free of a pulse the rhythm section players can contribute to the textures by using their instruments as sound resources.
Miles Davis recorded many versions of the blues tune 'Walkin''. In most, three things happen which are significant far beyond their simplicity. There are subtle changes in each performance but the formula remains the same. First, the head isn't repeated. Secondly, the melody is played freely. Thirdly, the texture of the rhythm section changes quite drastically.
All these ideas can be used to open up our thinking and those of our students. The most significant is that the pianist stops playing at the start of the solo chorus, thus changing the texture of the rhythm section away from the all-playing-together norm. And, very importantly, the rhythm section, and the pianist's contributions, seems much stronger when he returns. This has nothing to do with the technique of Herbie Hancock, but has to do with using the available techniques to make the music creative and interesting.
The way the tune was played is significant and potentially useful too. The unison theme statement changes towards the end into what can be called 'shadowing', with Miles and Wayne Shorter playing their individual versions of the tune. This example, like Ben Webster's 'Chelsea Bridge', shows that jazz doesn't exist in the written notes. What matters is what people do with what they are given.
The fact that they only played the head once as opposed to the normal twice could just be anxiousness to get to 'the real thing', the soloing. But it is changing what we expect to happen. For instance, instead of 'Let's play the head in unison and solos all round', why not start 'Stella by Starlight' with a pedal note under a rubato theme statement...
All these ideas and many others can be used to develop the creativity of jazz performers of any age and, most importantly, of any standard. I remember many many years ago being on a course with a jazz musician some years my senior who proceeded to baffle, bore and frighten the assembled students by going into a long tortuous explanation of chord sequences and substitution possibilities. This before they had even played one note!

unrealised potential

Underlying my ideas is the belief that the potential of jazz is often unrealised, even among those closely involved in the music. That generally- unrealised-potential is to create a music which is closely identified with the performers at that time, and has the possibility for change from performance to performance. My main support for this comes from the music of Duke Ellington, who taught us to pay close attention to the individual, and Miles Davis, who opened up the music with Kind of Blue and, very importantly, showed us the value of musical space.
There are methods where individuals, perhaps not even jazz musicians or wanna-be-jazz-musicians can learn to play some interesting jazz. These methods may not produce a good solo on 'Stella by Starlight', but one might legitimately ask if we need any more solos on that and many other jazz tunes, especially in what is meant to be a creative music. To repeat John Paynter: 'the first step must be the understanding of the medium and its potential. We can only discover this through creative experiment.'
One can develop ideas for use in a workshop suitable for any group of musicians, which are designed to develop creativity and jazz skills and are not dependent on technique. Such a process can illustrate Paynter's idea of 'creative experiment' and show how it can lead to an understanding of, or perhaps a new awareness of, the medium and its potential. (2)
These ideas will allow the players to develop their skills, or to take their first steps in improvising, without the need to concentrate on technique as the only means to an end. The aim should be to produce good music of whatever genre he or she wishes. The means that any jazz musician has to pursue that aim are threefold: his or her own feelings and ideas; what happens in the association with their colleagues in rehearsal and performance, and what they are capable of doing on the instrument within their technique.

the learning process

There is a language to be learnt, but it's not necessarily the same one for everybody. The only valid language is for the musician to present him- or herself. If a musician wants to copy someone that's fine. Copying solos is a learning process - at the beginning anyway. (It's cheating later!) Copying a style or a person is also a learning process. For some it may be valid as a total way of life but, for me, it destroys the very thing that makes jazz attractive: the ability of musicians to present themselves through the music.
The language to be learnt can be said to be the language which will enable the jazz musician to express him- or herself. If you want to play fast bebop then you have to learn that language, and chord scales are the answer. If you don't want to play fast bebop, then you don't need that particular language - although of course there is nothing wrong with learning it. What is important if you don't want to play fast bop - and even if you do - is developing creative ideas while using the technique you have.
This is not meant to be a negation of technique, only an argument against attempting to play complicated music using a limited technique. Or thinking that technique is all that is needed to be a jazz musician. Or thinking that one 15 year period of jazz's history - and its subsequent revival - says it all. It doesn't. Thankfully, there's a lot more to the music than that.

Further reading
The Shape of Jazz to Come, a panel discussion at the IAJE conference, New Orleans, 2000. click here

Notes
(1) The complete Gerry Mulligan meets Ben Webster (Verve, 1997) has two alternate takes on 'Chelsea Bridge'.

(2) Some of the possibilities are shown in Interaction and in an earlier book Jazz Workshop - the Blues (Universal Edition).

return to home