Songs to practice modes

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Well, yes and no. Some primitive instruments are designed to just make a cool sound. And then the music is designed around them, around what they can do.
Other more advanced ones are designed precisely to expand and improve existing musical styles. Eg, the piano was an improvement on pre-existing keyboard instruments, fully within a European classical music culture. Of course, its dynamic capacities meant the music could then be developed in a particular direction that wasn't possible before.
Guitars - IMO - are kind of midway. As a box with stretched strings on, it's pretty primitive. Many very different musical cultures around the world have very similar instruments. But the guitar as we know it has been refined for certain kinds of western music.
Yes, and the 12 notes - in equal temperament - is a particular European idea, and a fairly recent one. (The earliest fretted instruments had movable frets.)
You'e quite right the guitar is adaptable of course. The fact you can over-ride the frets and play slide had a special appeal for early blues players, because it allowed them to achieve the sounds they wanted - the notes that exist between the frets.

Is that how it went? or was it just that they picked up guitars, and messed around with them, and noticed that you could do bends and slides, and get a cool sound with that. I don't think they wanted that sound and then found or built a guitar that could do it. Seems more likely they had a guitar, and then discovered that sound on it.

If you wanted to design a guitar for the purpose of playing notes between the frets, then just don't put frets, and problem solved. That guitar can play any music of any style, any scales, any notes, and all pitches in between them.

Well, "blues" is many things. You could be playing blues in a sense (eg 12 bars, 3 chords, pentatonic scale), but if you're not bending notes you're omitting one essential element.

I still think pianos can play blues even though they can't bend notes though. It might be an element musicians like to use with the instruments that can do it, but that's not what makes it blues imo.

A7 is a common secondary dominant in key of F.
The black notes are Eb minor pentatonic. Are you sure the tune is in Bb?

no. In fact, now you mention it, I think it's Ab.

OK, but still too vague. Pick one of the tunes you're thinking about, tell us the key (or give us a youtube link), and say which particular two scales will work.

I mean, there's two issues here. If you're asking why something works, you have to be very specific: a specific tune, and a specific scale or scales, inorder for us to give you an answer. If you're just asserting that it does work, that's fine, but a specific example would still be good, because maybe we can learn something!

You know what? I just discovered that hymn for freedom, (YouTube link poste above), Doesn't do that. It is in the key of F, The bluesiness comes mostly from the Ab and the Eb I find, and I noticed that these also work well, at times when you want them, as the passing notes of the pentatonic. The pentatonic has an interval of just one step, and that interval passes well, as would be expected, and this, is a trademark bluesy sound to me.

The easy one though is I IV V, Take that in C. So C major is one scale. C-Eb-F-F#-G-Bb. That's the other. This is the most clear cut easy to find thing. I think that's why so many songs just use that progression. I know there's a jack johnson one like that also.

There's another song I play in a minor key that's just vi-ii, and that one works well with this sort of half steppish kind of arabic style scale, which is kind of a different thing. But still, there are definitely times where other scales seem to be useful. I mean, sometimes maybe only one note might be different. But, I think still playing it in a scale, makes a difference, even if all the other notes are already part of the original scale. Whether you do this subconsciously or not. And this might make a more outside sound, even though it is not that outside, because you're changing sort of the reference points.

Kind of like, let's say I play 2 different modes, with no drones, or chords in the background. The difference is only how I play those. So thinking of a similar set of notes, as having a different reference, can maybe lead to a more outside sound than it technically is. Just like if you copy pasted the Mixolydian style thing you played, over the whole aeolian chord progression.

I don't think that would sound too outside, but if you did that with a scale that had just one note outside of it, it might.

EDIT: I'm looking at some harmonic minor videos, and I think that might that arabic style sound thing I referred to. really looks like it to me.

[jasperguitar]

what about the song "I'm in the mode for love"



sorry.. could not help myself ..

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Is that how it went? or was it just that they picked up guitars, and messed around with them, and noticed that you could do bends and slides, and get a cool sound with that. I don't think they wanted that sound and then found or built a guitar that could do it. Seems more likely they had a guitar, and then discovered that sound on it.

Yes, but why choose that sound? Why choose to make a sound that the instrument wasn't designed for? Why did they think bent notes (and slide) were cool?
We obviously do because we've heard them do it before.
But the first time it was applied to guitar, it must have come from something else - namely vocal styles. This is quite evident from unaccompanied blues singers, and from the kinds of conversations early blues players had with their guitars.
Blues singing is where blues playing comes from. Not vice versa. African-Americans were singing when they were slaves, with no instruments (other than maybe makeshift drums, fiddles or banjos). Their African heritage was handed down, adapted to circumstances.

IOW, there was quite clearly something about how African-Americans made music that was very different from how Europeans (and European-Americans) made music, and those differences can be traced back to Africa. And they're enshrined in what came to be called the blues.
The rhythmic aspects of African heritage are evident to some degree in jazz, although more in Caribbean and South American music; but the melodic aspects are preserved mostly in blues, as well as the various vocalised instrumental techniques of jazz improvisers.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

If you wanted to design a guitar for the purpose of playing notes between the frets, then just don't put frets, and problem solved.

Yes. Or play slide. Much less work.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

That guitar can play any music of any style, any scales, any notes, and all pitches in between them.

Except it's harder to play chords, without the frets keeping you in line.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I still think pianos can play blues even though they can't bend notes though. It might be an element musicians like to use with the instruments that can do it, but that's not what makes it blues imo.

I agreed that pianists certainly can play blues. But as I said, they will commonly play crushed notes, as a way of emulating the particular chromaticisms of blues.
IOW, "blues piano" has become a genre of its own. The limitations of particular instruments obviously dictate the form of music to some degree.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

You know what? I just discovered that hymn for freedom, (YouTube link poste above), Doesn't do that. It is in the key of F, The bluesiness comes mostly from the Ab and the Eb I find, and I noticed that these also work well, at times when you want them, as the passing notes of the pentatonic.

Sure. Basic stuff!

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

The easy one though is I IV V, Take that in C. So C major is one scale. C-Eb-F-F#-G-Bb. That's the other.

Right, major scale and blues scale.
The idea (usually) is that vocal or melody tends towards the blues scale, but will commonly resolve to chord tones - all of which come from the C major scale. Those tensions - between minor pent scale (plus b5) and major key chord tones - are what we recognise as "blues".
But it's still a slightly crude view, because the pitches slide around, in a very distinctive way, on their way from chromatic to diatonic and vice versa (whether not we believe there are ideal "septimal" pitches in between).

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

There's another song I play in a minor key that's just vi-ii

You mean i-iv...

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

, and that one works well with this sort of half steppish kind of arabic style scale, which is kind of a different thing.

Right.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But still, there are definitely times where other scales seem to be useful. I mean, sometimes maybe only one note might be different. But, I think still playing it in a scale, makes a difference, even if all the other notes are already part of the original scale. Whether you do this subconsciously or not. And this might make a more outside sound, even though it is not that outside, because you're changing sort of the reference points.

Kind of like, let's say I play 2 different modes, with no drones, or chords in the background. The difference is only how I play those. So thinking of a similar set of notes, as having a different reference, can maybe lead to a more outside sound than it technically is. Just like if you copy pasted the Mixolydian style thing you played, over the whole aeolian chord progression.

I don't think that would sound too outside, but if you did that with a scale that had just one note outside of it, it might.

Well, yes it all comes down to "inside v outside" in the end!
The question is just how we perceive which is which, which can be quite a subtle thing, depending on how much we're given, and what we're expecting.
Eg, with no background, the scale becomes the source of what we perceived as "inside".
As soon as we hear more than one note, the ear is trying to make sense of how the different notes relate, because we want to find meaning. Certain combinations of notes are familiar (such as major or minor pent, major scale, or its modes), so if the series of notes gravitates towards one of those, that becomes the "inside".
Of course, that doesn't mean "good" necessarily, because we always want music to have something fresh or surprising - as long as it isn't totally alien (because then it wouldn't sound like music at all).

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

EDIT: I'm looking at some harmonic minor videos, and I think that might that arabic style sound thing I referred to. really looks like it to me.

Yes, the 5th mode of harmonic minor (phrygian dominant) is a popular way of sounding "arabic" or "flamenco". Other modes of it might be slightly more "out there".

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Yes, but why choose that sound? Why choose to make a sound that the instrument wasn't designed for? Why did they think bent notes (and slide) were cool?
We obviously do because we've heard them do it before.
But the first time it was applied to guitar, it must have come from something else - namely vocal styles. This is quite evident from unaccompanied blues singers, and from the kinds of conversations early blues players had with their guitars.
Blues singing is where blues playing comes from. Not vice versa. African-Americans were singing when they were slaves, with no instruments (other than maybe makeshift drums, fiddles or banjos). Their African heritage was handed down, adapted to circumstances.

IOW, there was quite clearly something about how African-Americans made music that was very different from how Europeans (and European-Americans) made music, and those differences can be traced back to Africa. And they're enshrined in what came to be called the blues.
The rhythmic aspects of African heritage are evident to some degree in jazz, although more in Caribbean and South American music; but the melodic aspects are preserved mostly in blues, as well as the various vocalised instrumental techniques of jazz improvisers.

Blues came from black america ok. But you made a lot of assumptions and conclusions based on very loose evidence. We'd need a whole new thread to debate why blues came black america. But it is not necessary that something preceded the guitar in order to get blue notes. If that logic was sound, then nothing new could ever exist.

It is enough that the strings may be bent, and someone did that, and thought it sounded cool, and so did everyone else. That's all you need.

[quote]Yes. Or play slide. Much less work.
Except it's harder to play chords, without the frets keeping you in line.

true. IT would still be odd though, to invent an insturment with a design of how it is to be played. It makes more sense to invent instruments and then people exploit what it can do. Like harmonics on guitar. The guitar wasn't designed for harmonics. It wasn't necessary that other instruments could play harmonics prior, but people could figure it out on guitar because it has that feature. You won't do it on piano.

I know, but what you're saying is that blue notes are blues, and I could play everything about a blues song, but if I don't play crushed notes though, it's not blues.

It has? I never heard anyone refer to that genre before. Why are you making genres more complicated? You need to analyse songs to figure out what genre they are now? wait until somebody plays a bluenote to call it blues? to me a genre is the vibe and the feel, the instruments and stuff like that. Sure you might find similarities and notes and stuff like that, but you don't need to dissect a song in order to find the genre.

yes. Just a second ago though, what we recognize as blues was blue notes that were "in between the frets"

I know that. My question is, why it works like that on blues chord progression. Some chord progressions are this way, and some are not. It is not to do with the melody. The melody might be pentatonic and the chords blues, but that's because that progression allows that. You can't do that on any progression. That's my question. Why is this possible sometimes and not at other times. There must be a relationship between the progression and these 2 scales, which is not always present for every diatonic chord progression.

Lol, ya. I view everything as major scale. It is easier like that for me somehow. I guess its not so useful for communication.


Right.
Well, yes it all comes down to "inside v outside" in the end!
The question is just how we perceive which is which, which can be quite a subtle thing, depending on how much we're given, and what we're expecting.
Eg, with no background, the scale becomes the source of what we perceived as "inside".
As soon as we hear more than one note, the ear is trying to make sense of how the different notes relate, because we want to find meaning. Certain combinations of notes are familiar (such as major or minor pent, major scale, or its modes), so if the series of notes gravitates towards one of those, that becomes the "inside".
Of course, that doesn't mean "good" necessarily, because we always want music to have something fresh or surprising - as long as it isn't totally alien (because then it wouldn't sound like music at all).
Yes, the 5th mode of harmonic minor (phrygian dominant) is a popular way of sounding "arabic" or "flamenco". Other modes of it might be slightly more "out there".

But why does harmonic minor work well with a i-iv? Why does the minor pentatonic work well with the classic blues progression?

If I were to use only theory to piece these together, then I would hasve to assume that there might be some progressions that allow this sort of thing for some period of time, but then only the key works well after. No?

I could see these working if all of their notes were part of every chord that is played, as though the progression were diatonic to those scales, but it is not that way. These scales are using notes outside of the key, that are not present in the chords they are floating over. There must be some other explanation.

That is my question.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Blues came from black america ok. But you made a lot of assumptions and conclusions based on very loose evidence.

Based on a lot of reading of the history. I can quote references if you like.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

We'd need a whole new thread to debate why blues came black america.

We would indeed .

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But it is not necessary that something preceded the guitar in order to get blue notes. If that logic was sound, then nothing new could ever exist.

One might argue that nothing new does exist. Only re-arrangements of what already exists .
Still, it's a fair point: logically, blue notes could have been invented from nowhere by someone messing around on guitar.
But that's ignoring the history, or rather logic derived from examining the history.
In any case, you still need to explain why that someone though blue notes sounded good, if he'd never heard anything like that, because technically they're "out of tune" with everything else. IOW, they would sound bad, unless there was an existing history (in that person's awareness) of them sounding good.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

It is enough that the strings may be bent, and someone did that, and thought it sounded cool, and so did everyone else. That's all you need.

No it isn't. You need to explain why - if it was so new - it sounded cool - and to so many people at the same time (or close to the same time).

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But why does harmonic minor work well with a i-iv?

Because all the chord tones are in the scale.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Why does the minor pentatonic work well with the classic blues progression?

In short, because it does. It sounds like blues. It's a kind of shortcut, because you then need to bend it a little to fit, to sound more authentic, but the pent alone (fixed pitches) can sound close enough. The ear forgives the clashes due to the familiarity of the practice.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

If I were to use only theory to piece these together, then I would hasve to assume that there might be some progressions that allow this sort of thing for some period of time, but then only the key works well after. No?

Not sure I understand what you mean by "some period of time".

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I could see these working if all of their notes were part of every chord that is played, as though the progression were diatonic to those scales, but it is not that way. These scales are using notes outside of the key, that are not present in the chords they are floating over. There must be some other explanation.

Of course. "Wrong" notes will sound "right" when there is a tradition of using them in a particular way.
IOW, if you think rules are being broken - in music that sounds OK- you're applying the wrong rules. (It's only when music sounds bad that you can talk about rules being broken.)
In this case, in thinking purely diatonically, you're applying a crude rule rather too rigidly.
Even in classical music, all kinds of chromaticism were used, but according to well-established rules.
In blues, it's different (the harmony is not "functional"), but the idea of "established practice" still applies. The melody notes that are "outside the key" are inside the traditional melodic practices (traditional African-American vocal habits). With no chords at all, the melodies will sound absolutely right. But the melodies bend notes in particular ways that don't quite fit equal tempered western scales. And the best way to accommodate both together - experience has shown - is to set the melodies (approximately minor pent) against a major key I-IV-V. That's because the blue 3rd is often sharp of minor, and - as we know - a melodic major 3rd above a minor 3rd in the harmony sounds nasty, while vice versa is OK (as in the 7#9 chord).

There's an important (but subtle) distinction regarding "inside" and "outside" here. In jazz - as in classical music - chromatic notes serve functional purposes. Eg, if we introduce an A7 chord in key of C major, it's probably in order to lead to Dm (as a "secondary dominant", V/ii); the C# works as a leading tone to D; or (in jazz anyway) it might also work leading down to C on a Dm7.
Those kind of chromatics are always fixed pitches in equal temperament.
But in blues, chromatics sometimes just sit there as unresolved clashes (eg that #9 on a blues tonic 7#9 "Hendrix" chord); or they might bend towards the next half-step, and not quite get there. IOW, those juicy unresolved tensions are part of the blues language. They'd sound quite wrong in a classical context (and in many pop or jazz contexts) but in blues they are "correct".
So, if we want a theory to explain it, we shouldn't expect theory borrowed from CPP practices (functional harmony) to do the job. We need a special "blues theory", based on proper examination of blues itself; and that in turn needs a full historical (and geographical) overview of blues, defining exacly what it is and where it comes from.
We might want to invoke science - measuring frequencies - which is where the septimal theory of blue notes comes from - but we don't have to. (I don't totally subscribe to that, but I may be coming round to it.)
But really, all that any "music theory" needs to do is describe the common practices in as accurate and detailed a way as possible (or as necessary). It doesn't have to explain why something works, only observe that there seems to be general agreement that it does work; and then invent some handy terminology for talking about it. (Classical music theory doesn't explain why classical music works.)

[Dalegreen]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I could see these working if all of their notes were part of every chord that is played, as though the progression were diatonic to those scales, but it is not that way. These scales are using notes outside of the key, that are not present in the chords they are floating over. There must be some other explanation.

That is my question.

Once you start adding extensions to the chords within the context of a key, they do work very well. If you look at a harmonic minor scale and use chords within that context you can add all types of chord note extensions and then add all types of variations to your modes as mentioned in previous replies.
It is quite complex from a theoretical perspective, so understanding basic chord changes (without extensions) and applying scale forms ( modes, pentatonic, etc) relative to those chords is the best approach. I will post a chart with a new thread, should give a bit of understanding as to one of many, many options

[mr. beaumont]

You're thinking about "key" too much. Each chord is a harmonic environment. Even in diatonic progressions the strong notes shift chord to chord.

[Dalegreen]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You're thinking about "key" too much. Each chord is a harmonic environment. Even in diatonic progressions the strong notes shift chord to chord.

agree totally, just coming from the approach, learn all the "rules" , then break them all

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You're thinking about "key" too much. Each chord is a harmonic environment. Even in diatonic progressions the strong notes shift chord to chord.

Fair enough, but if the progression is diatonic, then how is that information helpful?

I mean, ok, each chord will have its own sound that is strong. If I look at my fretboard though, as the key, as that pattern, then all i would have to do, is listen, and then I would just choose those chord tones often enough, based purely on the sound.

I don't have to look at the fretboard any different.

Or,

Is there some advantage to looking at the chords as separate, for a diatonic progression? I don't mean in terms of sound, I mean in terms of patterns on the fretboard.

I looked into treating chords as separate, and found that it was only really useful for non diatonic progressions, but I'm starting to think that might not be the case, or it isn't always the case.

So, this would be cool to learn also, but I haven't come across specific evidence of these sorts of things really.

I would love to see somebody play some thing, that was not something that I would think of playing, and they looked at the fretboard in some way I do not, to help them do that. Whether it is some scale they use on a chord basis, or some scale they use on a string of chords.

I'd be satisfied with the explanation that the 12 bar blues is like that, because it so happens that every one of those chords work well with those 2 scales that they use, looked at from a non diatonic perspective, and when you string them together, you find that the whole progression works with both.

that would be good information. That would mean that every time, I come a cross a IV chord, I could mess around with those 2 scales.

I don't much like music that is non diatonic though. I like for music to go non diatonic for a little bit, but a lot like how jazz is.

If looking at the progression as chords, and not the key, is only useful for non diatonic music, then I don't care much for it. Again, I mean in terms of pattern on the fretboard. Aeolian, mode over the 6th chord in the major key, is the same as just playing that major key. So there is nothing new fretboard wise. Sound wise, playing over the vi and over the V is very different.

But are there other options that are common scales to use over the vi, that are not the aeolian mode, and are not relatives to it?

[mr. beaumont]

You seem kinda hung up on "play this over this." Can you really hear what notes truly define any chord? Am to D7 to Gmajor...what notes really define that progression?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Fair enough, but if the progression is diatonic, then how is that information helpful?

I mean, ok, each chord will have its own sound that is strong. If I look at my fretboard though, as the key, as that pattern, then all i would have to do, is listen, and then I would just choose those chord tones often enough, based purely on the sound.

I don't have to look at the fretboard any different.

Or,

Is there some advantage to looking at the chords as separate, for a diatonic progression? I don't mean in terms of sound, I mean in terms of patterns on the fretboard.

FWIW, my view of diatonic progressions is the same as yours, at least as a foundation.
IOW, your basis is - as you say - the chord ones within the diatonic framework.
Eg, if you're in C major and you have a Dm7 chord, then the foundation is the chord tones (D F A C) with the other 3 diatonic notes (E G B) as passing notes. All 7 notes can be used, but there's those clear two levels: chord tones "in", passing notes "out" (relatively).

Jeff may be thinking about "voice-leading" between chords: ie, not just thinking of chord tones at random, but of how they move to the next chord. Eg, the C on Dm7 resolves to the B on G7 (and then - classically - back up to C on the C chord, although in jazz it might well stay on B for Cmaj7); The F on Dm7 holds across to F on G7 and then descends to E on the C. These are what are called "guide tone" lines in jazz. They're what chain the chords together as a functional unit, a working "machine" if you like.

Beyond the chord tones are the 5 chromatics (as you also know), even more "out", but which can also be used as passing notes: usually as "chromatic approaches" - half-step below or above chord tones.
But also you can insert chromatics between chords to smooth the changes. Eg, going from A on Dm7 to B on G7, you could go via A#.
It's really the same as a chromatic approach (to the G7 chord tone) but starting from a previous chord tone.

What I would say is that you seem to want to think too much in terms of fretboard patterns. Obviously we use (and see) fretboard patterns all the time, as chord shapes, intervals or scale patterns, but we need to think in notes and chord tones (including extensions/alterations).

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I looked into treating chords as separate, and found that it was only really useful for non diatonic progressions, but I'm starting to think that might not be the case, or it isn't always the case.

You're right, treating chords as separate entities is not useful in key-based progressions. It's distracting, and over-complicated.
It's crucial to maintain the functional links between chords; which doesn't mean ignoring all the chromatic options, far from it!
What you call "non-diatonic progressions" - and others might call "modal harmony" or "non-functional sequences" - again you're right, that's where focussing on individual chord-scales is appropriate.
But even there, it's important to think about links across the chords, to preserve a melodic flow. Ie, even in pure "modal jazz" there are links between the chords - there is a logic to the chord changes, even if's not a conventional functional one.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I would love to see somebody play some thing, that was not something that I would think of playing, and they looked at the fretboard in some way I do not, to help them do that. Whether it is some scale they use on a chord basis, or some scale they use on a string of chords.

I'd be satisfied with the explanation that the 12 bar blues is like that, because it so happens that every one of those chords work well with those 2 scales that they use, looked at from a non diatonic perspective, and when you string them together, you find that the whole progression works with both.

that would be good information. That would mean that every time, I come a cross a IV chord, I could mess around with those 2 scales.

Here's where I think you may be drifting away from the point. Still thinking too much about scales. Think much more about chord tones (within a scale pattern if you must).

It's a big mistake - IMHO (and this rant is not directed at you personally!) - to think about "applying scales"; to look at a chord sequence and think "what scales could I apply here". It's ignoring what you're given. The chord sequence gives you all the inside notes you need - you only then need to introduce chromatics as passing/approach notes, if you want to add that level of "spice". There's no need to apply any chord-scale theory whatsoever.

The best chord-scale theory is still only a system for listing the "inside" notes on any chord (extensions/alterations as well as chord tones). Normally the tune gives you all that information. For any single chord in a progression, you can usually get all the other chord-scale notes from (a) the melody, (b) the other chords, (c) hints in the chord symbol.
It's static harmony (modal, non-functional) where chord-scale theory can be useful, simply because the single chord (and melody) may not provide all that information - and the other chords in the sequence may not be relevant (they'll have their own chord-scales).

IOW, there's nothing wrong with "chord-scale theory" - except it isn't a "theory"! It's not a method; it's not a principle of, or basis for, improvisation. It's simply a way of listing suitable extensions/alterations on any given chord. Principles of improvisation are something quite different, beyond that.
Chord-scale concepts might be a way of looking at a bunch of chords, suggesting usable notes. It might just (very occasionally) suggest options which are not ****ed obvious from the given material (chord symbols and melody). But it's not something you "apply" as a method of choosing what you play. Not until you've decided - for whatever reason - to reject what you're given, anyway.
A French dictionary is not a method for speaking French.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I don't much like music that is non diatonic though. I like for music to go non diatonic for a little bit, but a lot like how jazz is.

No problem.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

If looking at the progression as chords, and not the key, is only useful for non diatonic music, then I don't care much for it.

Fine .

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Again, I mean in terms of pattern on the fretboard. Aeolian, mode over the 6th chord in the major key, is the same as just playing that major key.

Yes. And don't forget - "in terms of pattern on the fretboard" - this is a crucial point - the major key scale runs all over the neck. The chord determines the effective mode, not the choice of pattern (within that whole-fretboard scale).
So you don't "play aeolian". You play the scale of the key. The vi chord makes it sound "aeolian" (by providing the root quality).
And even then, the aeolian sound is fleeting, unless the chord lasts for several bars. The true (relevant) sound is "vi chord in major key (Ionian mode)",

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

So there is nothing new fretboard wise. Sound wise, playing over the vi and over the V is very different.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But are there other options that are common scales to use over the vi, that are not the aeolian mode, and are not relatives to it?

In short, no.
I mean, obviously you can "apply" other scales. But they will all have at least one "wrong note".
By "wrong note", I mean a non-functioning chromaticism.
You can still use any of the 5 chromatic notes in addition to that "aeolian mode" (major scale on vi) - but they should be used as passing notes, or at least with some understanding of the effect each of them has on that chord, or in leading to a subsequent chord.

Eg, a good example of an applied chromaticism which is not a passing note is in Jimi Hendrix's Little Wing. The key is G major, and he plays a Bm chord with an add 9th (C#). The diatonic 9th would be C, a b9. He's not using the C# as a chromatic approach to D (he's pulling off to B). And what he is certainly not doing is "applying B aeolian mode", or "B dorian mode" (instead of diatonic B phrygian).
He's adding the C# purely because he likes the sound of a major 9th on top of a minor chord.
IOW, he's using his ear and experience (and taste) to decide that an add9 sounds cool even when it's out of key.
Of course he also uses a couple of chromatic chords, also for pragmatic reasons. Right after the Bm(add9) is Bbm, a chromatic passing chord down to Am (the "theory" there is chromatic voice-leading). And there's an F too, the classic rock bVII chord (the "theory" there is modal interchange, or borrowing from the parallel minor).

So there are various theories one can invoke to support various practices in rock music - if you think it needs theoretical support!. "Applying scales" (chord-scale theory) is not one of them, not in my experience.

That's not to say that we can't use modal terms as a shorthand to help describe the effect of certain practices in rock. Eg, we can say Carlos Santana "uses A dorian mode" on "Oye Como Va". But from another perspective, all he is really doing is using the chord tones from the Am7 and D7 chords that comprise the sequence - with a consciousness that A is keynote (not G). He may have heard of the term "A dorian mode", or he may not; it's not a necessary concept.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You seem kinda hung up on "play this over this." Can you really hear what notes truly define any chord? Am to D7 to Gmajor...what notes really define that progression?

Sure. I can play over any diatonic or semi-diatonic chord progression the first time I hear it. I am not looking for the strong notes. I am looking for wisdom that I may not have found on my own.

I want to add a new angle like trying to solve a brain teaser and then looking at it in some other way makes it possible.

Some scales or something that will add a new flavour I don't currently use. Honestly, I thought this would be much easier, since all I know is essentially one pattern and that's it.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Some scales or something that will add a new flavour I don't currently use. Honestly, I thought this would be much easier, since all I know is essentially one pattern and that's it.

I'll go back to my original suggestion: Learn solos by other people. That's how you will learn new ideas. You can program a computer to play the right combinations of notes over a chord or progression, but it won't be music. We need a musical vocabulary. There may be a few geniuses who can create their own vocabulary from scratch. The rest of us learn english (or other language) vocabulary by talking with others, imitating, and experimenting, being corrected, and even at some point studying a bit about grammar and spelling.

I got this suggestion from someone (Lee Ritenour, I think, in a GP article) years ago. Something like this:

Learn one lick a day. Short, simple.

Play it in all keys
Find other ways to finger it
If it's major, change it to be minor, vice versa
Try it against different chords
Play it backwards
Invert it, when it goes up, go down, when it goes down, go up

That should produce maybe anywhere from a few to hundreds of variations of the lick.
Do that every day for a year. You'll have so many thousands of licks that you won't even know when you use one. They'll be like the words you use to talk, you won't remember who you first heard use the word, you'll just use them to communicate your own ideas.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

FWIW, my view of diatonic progressions is the same as yours, at least as a foundation.
IOW, your basis is - as you say - the chord ones within the diatonic framework.
Eg, if you're in C major and you have a Dm7 chord, then the foundation is the chord tones (D F A C) with the other 3 diatonic notes (E G B) as passing notes. All 7 notes can be used, but there's those clear two levels: chord tones "in", passing notes "out" (relatively).

I don't really "look at it that way". I look at the key, and know that, look at the pentatonic and know that, look at the pentatonic minor sometimes, which I don't understand why, but sometimes I do, and that's it. What chords are playing don't matter to me in a sort of fretboard pattern way. It only matters to me when I am playing the chord or most of it. I don't think of it as "inside" and "outside" notes of the chord. I recognize that often times as I solo, I am building chord extensions, or not, but I don't think of those. The whole "inside" "outside" chord note thing is completely subliminal to me. I just know those patterns, and choose whatever I want to hear from those. It's just the 3 levels, pentatonic, key, and the rest. That's all I see from a fretboard pov really. I will play arpeggios sometimes, but I don't consider the notes of chords as inside or outside. But still, subliminally I will resolve that way. I just don't really think of it like that.

Jeff may be thinking about "voice-leading" between chords: ie, not just thinking of chord tones at random, but of how they move to the next chord. Eg, the C on Dm7 resolves to the B on G7 (and then - classically - back up to C on the C chord, although in jazz it might well stay on B for Cmaj7); The F on Dm7 holds across to F on G7 and then descends to E on the C. These are what are called "guide tone" lines in jazz. They're what chain the chords together as a functional unit, a working "machine" if you like.

Beyond the chord tones are the 5 chromatics (as you also know), even more "out", but which can also be used as passing notes: usually as "chromatic approaches" - half-step below or above chord tones.
But also you can insert chromatics between chords to smooth the changes. Eg, going from A on Dm7 to B on G7, you could go via A#.
It's really the same as a chromatic approach (to the G7 chord tone) but starting from a previous chord tone.

What I would say is that you seem to want to think too much in terms of fretboard patterns. Obviously we use (and see) fretboard patterns all the time, as chord shapes, intervals or scale patterns, but we need to think in notes and chord tones (including extensions/alterations).
You're right, treating chords as separate entities is not useful in key-based progressions. It's distracting, and over-complicated.
It's crucial to maintain the functional links between chords; which doesn't mean ignoring all the chromatic options, far from it!
What you call "non-diatonic progressions" - and others might call "modal harmony" or "non-functional sequences" - again you're right, that's where focussing on individual chord-scales is appropriate.
But even there, it's important to think about links across the chords, to preserve a melodic flow. Ie, even in pure "modal jazz" there are links between the chords - there is a logic to the chord changes, even if's not a conventional functional one.
Here's where I think you may be drifting away from the point. Still thinking too much about scales. Think much more about chord tones (within a scale pattern if you must).

I am happy with my core way of thinking about it/playing. I am just looking for more exotic ideas I might not have. I am mentioning scales, because I believe they may be a way to take notes that otherwise would not sound so great, but put into a relative context of a scale, might give them some sort of cohesion, that might make them sound better, and give a more exotic sound. i don't have "issues" improvising. I am not looking for how to improvise or anything like that. I am looking for ways of looking at it, that I don't do, that will give me more exotic sounds than those I have found with my current method.

It's a big mistake - IMHO (and this rant is not directed at you personally!) - to think about "applying scales"; to look at a chord sequence and think "what scales could I apply here". It's ignoring what you're given. The chord sequence gives you all the inside notes you need - you only then need to introduce chromatics as passing/approach notes, if you want to add that level of "spice". There's no need to apply any chord-scale theory whatsoever.

It's not a thing of needing It's just if there are other ingredients, I would like to know how they taste, and what other ingredients they go well with, so that I may use them. I am already a pretty good cook with the ingredients I have.

The best chord-scale theory is still only a system for listing the "inside" notes on any chord (extensions/alterations as well as chord tones). Normally the tune gives you all that information. For any single chord in a progression, you can usually get all the other chord-scale notes from (a) the melody, (b) the other chords, (c) hints in the chord symbol.
It's static harmony (modal, non-functional) where chord-scale theory can be useful, simply because the single chord (and melody) may not provide all that information - and the other chords in the sequence may not be relevant (they'll have their own chord-scales).

IOW, there's nothing wrong with "chord-scale theory" - except it isn't a "theory"! It's not a method; it's not a principle of, or basis for, improvisation. It's simply a way of listing suitable extensions/alterations on any given chord. Principles of improvisation are something quite different, beyond that.
Chord-scale concepts might be a way of looking at a bunch of chords, suggesting usable notes. It might just (very occasionally) suggest options which are not ****ed obvious from the given material (chord symbols and melody). But it's not something you "apply" as a method of choosing what you play. Not until you've decided - for whatever reason - to reject what you're given, anyway.
A French dictionary is not a method for speaking French.

The dictionary is not how to speak french, but if I can increase my vocabulary, I can speak more eloquently.

In short, no.
I mean, obviously you can "apply" other scales. But they will all have at least one "wrong note".
By "wrong note", I mean a non-functioning chromaticism.
You can still use any of the 5 chromatic notes in addition to that "aeolian mode" (major scale on vi) - but they should be used as passing notes, or at least with some understanding of the effect each of them has on that chord, or in leading to a subsequent chord.

I don't mind if there are "wrong notes" In fact, it is necessary that there are. What matters to me, is if the scale can be used and sound good as a scale. If it can, then I want to learn it. If it can't then I don't and am uncertain why it exists.

Eg, a good example of an applied chromaticism which is not a passing note is in Jimi Hendrix's Little Wing. The key is G major, and he plays a Bm chord with an add 9th (C#). The diatonic 9th would be C, a b9. He's not using the C# as a chromatic approach to D (he's pulling off to B). And what he is certainly not doing is "applying B aeolian mode", or "B dorian mode" (instead of diatonic B phrygian).
He's adding the C# purely because he likes the sound of a major 9th on top of a minor chord.

Now, that you mention it, I actually do that specific thing often enough. In that song too. That degree is the only one where the 9th of the diatonic minor chord is not also a diatonic note. But, I find it is still a very passing note sort of thing. It's very tensionish.

IOW, he's using his ear and experience (and taste) to decide that an add9 sounds cool even when it's out of key.
Of course he also uses a couple of chromatic chords, also for pragmatic reasons. Right after the Bm(add9) is Bbm, a chromatic passing chord down to Am (the "theory" there is chromatic voice-leading).

Ya, this is useful also, I do this, but I think there might be more times to do this sort of thing that are useful that I've not discovered. really.

And there's an F too, the classic rock bVII chord (the "theory" there is modal interchange, or borrowing from the parallel minor).

I don't recall the F here. I'll have to check that out.

So there are various theories one can invoke to support various practices in rock music - if you think it needs theoretical support!. "Applying scales" (chord-scale theory) is not one of them, not in my experience.

I don't think anything needs theoretical support. I think people find sounds and name them. They find tendencies, and name them. I'm looking for some of those. A tendency with a name. That's it. But, not one of the basic ones. Perhaps one that is less common.

That's not to say that we can't use modal terms as a shorthand to help describe the effect of certain practices in rock. Eg, we can say Carlos Santana "uses A dorian mode" on "Oye Como Va". But from another perspective, all he is really doing is using the chord tones from the Am7 and D7 chords that comprise the sequence - with a consciousness that A is keynote (not G). He may have heard of the term "A dorian mode", or he may not; it's not a necessary concept.

My question is though. Why are some tunes like the 12 bar blues, tunes that you can use the minor pentatonic with, and also the major scale, and other chord progressions are not that way.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I'll go back to my original suggestion: Learn solos by other people. That's how you will learn new ideas. You can program a computer to play the right combinations of notes over a chord or progression, but it won't be music. We need a musical vocabulary. There may be a few geniuses who can create their own vocabulary from scratch. The rest of us learn english (or other language) vocabulary by talking with others, imitating, and experimenting, being corrected, and even at some point studying a bit about grammar and spelling.

I got this suggestion from someone (Lee Ritenour, I think, in a GP article) years ago. Something like this:

Learn one lick a day. Short, simple.

Play it in all keys
Find other ways to finger it
If it's major, change it to be minor, vice versa
Try it against different chords
Play it backwards
Invert it, when it goes up, go down, when it goes down, go up

That should produce maybe anywhere from a few to hundreds of variations of the lick.
Do that every day for a year. You'll have so many thousands of licks that you won't even know when you use one. They'll be like the words you use to talk, you won't remember who you first heard use the word, you'll just use them to communicate your own ideas.

You know what? I would definitely do this, except it is not that easy.

Some cool sounding things are so fast and that makes it really tough to ear out. And a lot of sort of tutorials and things are too basic.

So, it would take a long time just to find the licks, and then a long time to ear it out.

If I had a good resource though of cool licks played fast, and then played slow, I would definitely do that.

Sometimes I wish I could just listen to somebody awesome play, and then go "wow, stop. ok, what did you just do there?"


I have the feeling though, that there are things people are doing in solos, that use concepts I don't use. I am happy with learning those. I don't mind finding my own licks with those concepts.

If there are no such concepts though, then in a way that's awesome, because I have nothing left to learn theory wise, and in a way that sucks, because I have nothing left to learn theory wise.

But, it seems to me, like there must be more concepts that I don't use. there are a bunch of scales I never use. They must exist for some reason. Maybe they are useless for diatonic music though. That would suck.

Maybe all I can do now is learn licks. If that's the case, then there is a lot less theory than people think, imo.