The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > PLAY and Write

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 11-13-2013, 11:29 AM
JonPR JonPR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
But you're not saying anything different from the way I think. I just think we use different words or concepts for the same thing.
It may be that I'm aware of more theoretical levels than you are, or maybe more conscious of what I'm doing, but it seems like we play the same way - using those 3 levels you're talking about, aurally and largely subconsciously.
There's no fundamental disagreement here .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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 understand what you're saying, and I think it's true that an applied scale structure might offer an alternative context - as opposed to just thinking "7 diatonic, 5 chromatic".
That would be the case with pentatonics at least, and perhaps with scales such as the wholetone or diminished.
Of course, melodic minor modes are used a lot in jazz, but the way they work is as sets of applied chromatics.

Eg, the famous "altered" scale, aka "superlocrian", "diminished wholetone" or 7th mode melodic minor, used on V7 chords. Thinking of it as "7th mode melodic minor" is a way of remembering it, for those who know their melodic minor modes as well as their major scale modes. But the way it works is as a series of chromatic tensions with half-step voice-leading.
I knew the theory of the altered scale way before I could actually use it. I didn't manage to apply it until I understood how it worked. It has nothing to do with melodic minor. I needed to forget that it was a "scale", and see how the alterations resolved. That made musical sense. The relation with a melodic minor mode is pure coincidence.
That's one beef I have with applied scale theory: it keeps the focus of thought on scales, and not on melodic functionality. It persuades one to learn scale patterns, which - in turn - persuades one to run scales when soloing. "Oh, this scale fits, so I'll just run up and down it until the chord changes..." (I'm exaggerating, and I don't think you have that problem, but I hope you see the point .)
Scales are way overrated!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
Sure, I get that.

So, I can mention a couple of chord-scale conventions on a dom7 chord:
1. altered scale (1 b2 #2 3 b5 #5 b7) - see above.
2. HW dim (1 b2 #2 3 #4 5 6 b7)
You can study those as scales, and work out (or look up) fretboard patterns for them.
Each of them lend themselves well to superimposed arpeggios (3- or 4-note selections from the 7 notes), which will contribute a good sense of structure.
But the things to remember are:
1. Altered scale = chord tones 1-3-7, plus both altered 5ths and both altered 9ths
2. HW dim = chord tones 1-3-5-7, plus both altered 9ths, #11 and 13.
3. the chords (being functioning dom7s) are designed to resolve to a major or minor chord rooted a 4th above (5th down). Every note in, both chord and scale, is designed to either hold across to the next chord, or resolve up or down to a chord tone or extension on that next chord, usually by half-step.
That's the mechanism. As long as you get that, there's no problem thinking of them as applied scales.
But my view is that when I think of how the scale works, I'm no longer really thinking of it as a scale. I'm seeing the chord tones (& alterations/extensions), and I'm seeing the notes in the next chord that they can move to.
So there's a quite rational view that can deal with the chords alone, and the voice-leading, and ignore the fact that the notes in question happen to form a scale. (Why think of a scale if you know all the notes in another way?)
YMMV, naturally!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
The reason most (if not all) of these applied scales exist, is that some people find them to be useful memory aids for common kinds of chromaticism.

A summary of conventional applied (non-diatonic) scales in jazz might be the following:

1. Tonic major chord = lydian mode. Solves the P4 "avoid note".

2. V7 chord (minor or major key) = altered scale, HW dim, wholetone, augmented. All provide good chromatic voice-leading to the next chord. They also all solve both the P4 avoid note, and the b6 avoid note.

3. bII7 chord (major or minor key), or bVII chord (major key), or bVI7 in minor key = lydian dominant, aka 4th mode melodic minor. Closest scale to the diatonic scale (pretty much) that includes all the chord tones.
On a bII7 chord is the exact tritone sub for the altered V7. (E7alt and Bb7, if both resolving to Am, will both take the F melodic minor scale.)
No avoid notes.

4. m7b5 chord (ii in minor key) = locrian natural 2, aka 6th mode melodic minor. Solves the b9 avoid note.

5. susb9 = phrygian natural 6, 2nd mode melodic minor. Optional alternative to phrygian, in modal jazz. (NB, not on a iii chord in major key!)

That's pretty much it (although I may have forgotten one or two). Applied scales on other chords are not really helpful or necessary.
And notice the purpose of all those scales: most of them are about "avoiding the avoid notes" - giving a full set of freely usable notes, while preserving functional purpose. It's important to be aware of those twin purposes: both good reasons for diverging from diatonic scales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
Yup. Worth exploring absolutely any chromatic transition between neighbouring chords. Just fill in those intervening frets and forget theory! Your ear will tell you which ones sound good, and when.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
Right - the ones I listed vary from common to less common.
My knowledge (and interest) doesn't really extend much beyond that.

Eg, the harmonic major scale (1 2 3 4 5 b6 7) is pretty cool, but I've only ever heard of one application of it, in functional jazz - and I'm not sure I can remember what it is!
I think it was the 3rd mode. Eg, C harmonic major on an E7 chord. Gives 1-b2-#2-3-5-b6-b7 (E F G G#(Ab) B C D). IOW, you get both altered 9ths, and keep the perfect 5th. However you also have the b6 (b13) which is an avoid note against the 5th.
The 5th mode also looks good for a V7sus4b9 chord. C harmonic major on G7 gives you 1-b2-3-4-5-6-b7. The avoid note issue doesn't arise because the chord is a sus4. (Note this is for a V7susb9 in a major key. Susb9 chords (1-4-5-b7-b9) might be phrygian modal chords, in which case this scale is wrong.)

BTW, the harmonic major scale does also provide the entire melody of the bridge of Irving Berlin's Blue Skies (probably accidentally)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
Because blues is a special case! Due to the African-inflected vocal-melody scale.
When major key chord progressions (I-IV-V anyway) have the tonic minor pent applied, that "sounds like blues", which is why it's done.
"Other chord progressions" are entirely based on western practices: either functional harmony (with its traditionally codified use of chromaticism), or modal/static harmony, where chromaticism is more limited (because the static sound depends so much on preserving the diatonic mode).

It's quite possible to imagine western scales (and their chord sequences) coloured by other ethnic heritages, such as (say) raga, with its countless scale forms, all of them subject to microtonal embellishment, in more complex ways than blues.
I know lots of musicians have worked with combining Indian practices with western ones, but I don't know that music well enough to know details.
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-13-2013, 11:51 AM
mr. beaumont mr. beaumont is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
Well, using guide tones is a way of freeing yourself up from box patterns and shapes.

Check out Ed Byrne's comments on the concept of "Linear Improvisation."

Or do you actually not want help? It seems like you're looking for some easy answer like "play this scale over this chord and you'll get a totally new sound." It doesn't work like that.
__________________
Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:

http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-13-2013, 12:22 PM
JonPR JonPR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
Well, using guide tones is a way of freeing yourself up from box patterns and shapes.

Check out Ed Byrne's comments on the concept of "Linear Improvisation."
Seconded!

To save MoF buying the book (or ideally to persuade him )...
http://jazztalk.wordpress.com/webrings/
http://freejazzinstitute.com/showposts.php?dept=lji
http://freejazzinstitute.com/showpos...084503_EdByrne

Thread on it here:
http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/impro...ovisation.html
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-13-2013, 01:47 PM
Monk of Funk Monk of Funk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
Well, using guide tones is a way of freeing yourself up from box patterns and shapes.

Check out Ed Byrne's comments on the concept of "Linear Improvisation."

Or do you actually not want help? It seems like you're looking for some easy answer like "play this scale over this chord and you'll get a totally new sound." It doesn't work like that.
I do want help, but chord tones within a diatonic scale is something I've already visited.

I'll play those, I'll throw arpeggios in, it's just, in my mind, it is a scale, and there is a chord playing at a given time. Just the sound is the main thing for me when I solo, but I'll play the chord that's playing in arpeggio, and resolve to the chord tones. i just don't necessarily think of it so much. Maybe I do sometimes, but it is not very present in my mind, even though I do it.

I will also arpeggiated other chords that are not the chord that's playing. It's a different sound, but to me, it's like, I see that in the scale, and I want that sound. It doesn't "matter" to me, whether it is the chord that's playing or not. It just matters whether or not I want that sound at that time.

But I recognize that when I play the chord that's playing that will be a "stronger" sound. I will find it also, without knowing what chord is playing.

That said, knowing all the chords in their 3 positions, is something I work on. And I don't know them all because I don't know all the note names. Which is something else I'm working on.

So, it's more of a case of "I already do that" afaict, but I'm just saying that I don't really look at it that way so much. I have more of a key oriented view of the fretboard. Chords in it, are, to me, just collections within that.

You have made me thought of something though. On the piano, you can look at say, the major key, and look at Cmajor, and you will see that it is 3 notes, with a whole step in between them, and then you can continue going up in steps of the key like that, and you begin to build other chords, that layer on top, creating maj 7th, maj 9th, 13th etc... I think that learn the triads and where they sit relative to each other on the fretboard might be cool. in piano it is easy and obvious. That Em on top of C is building Cmaj7, is not as obvious on guitar. I think this could be cool to recognize.

Look at the fretboard in terms of chords that are each a whole step of the key up. That might be cool. Never thought of it that way before on guitar.

I will still look at what you suggest though.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-13-2013, 02:02 PM
Monk of Funk Monk of Funk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 962
Default

That's looks like a lot of information. Persuasion is easy. But it is easiest when it is heard. I don't much like looking at jazz improvisation because it refers too much to music that isn't diatonic, or mostly diatonic, which I don't like. I find it very difficult to be interested in theory without sound. That's why I much prefer videos. I can hear right away what it is. Otherwise it can be rough for me. As you can tell I do not know all the terminology and stuff of theory, so it is easy for me to get lost. If I can hear it, then I can know what they're talking about more easily. I can also hear if it is something I know already.

Like we said, Aeolian played on the vi, is just the key scale, but if I didn't hear that in context, somebody could be talking to me at length about playing aeolian over a vi, and I'd be all ears and interested for a good while, until I get to my guitar, and realize all that time listening to that, was wasted, because it's just the key scale really.


But anything that can be applied to diatonic progressions are things I am interested in. The downer is that Jazz tends not to look at it that way, because Jazz is all over the place. I would like to take some of those Jazz concepts and apply them to diatonic progressions though, if it possible. I just don't know which can and which can't. I know there are a bunch of scales, and stuff like that, and I know that in jazz they look at improvisation very much on a chord by chord basis, because it switches key so much, but I don't really want to play music that is like that. I like diatonic music. I like music that strays from that slightly, maybe a secondary dominant here or there or whatever, but I don't like music that changes too much in this way.

I'm curious though, do you know why the 12 bar blues works with pentatonic minor and also the key scale, whereas other things don't?

Last edited by Monk of Funk; 11-13-2013 at 02:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-13-2013, 02:35 PM
Dalegreen Dalegreen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: chilliwack
Posts: 349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
That's looks like a lot of information.




But anything that can be applied to diatonic progressions are things I am interested in. The downer is that Jazz tends not to look at it that way, because Jazz is all over the place. I would like to take some of those Jazz concepts and apply them to diatonic progressions though, if it possible. I just don't know which can and which can't.

I
(IMO) jazz is actually even more "structured " or at least equally structured to the classical form . It is not all over the place, but rather a very sophisticated approach and form.
Trying to grasp onto some jazz concepts and apply them to your music is possible, but like anything else, understanding the concept is what will lead you to that point.
It is like a jig saw puzzle, you can keep it all in a pile or have a few pieces clipped together at random points, still not quite allowing you to see the bigger picture .... or you can break it down step by step and slowly put it all together.
I would highly recommend the berklee (boston) online jazz program, or at least their jazz 101 class, also their chords 101, great instructors, same format as their on campus classes, and same instructors. That would definitely answer all of your questions / ideas / concepts

Last edited by Dalegreen; 11-13-2013 at 11:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-13-2013, 05:26 PM
JonPR JonPR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
But anything that can be applied to diatonic progressions are things I am interested in. The downer is that Jazz tends not to look at it that way, because Jazz is all over the place.
It only looks that way when you don't understand the language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
I would like to take some of those Jazz concepts and apply them to diatonic progressions though, if it possible.
Then you need to study the language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
I just don't know which can and which can't. I know there are a bunch of scales, and stuff like that, and I know that in jazz they look at improvisation very much on a chord by chord basis, because it switches key so much, but I don't really want to play music that is like that. I like diatonic music. I like music that strays from that slightly, maybe a secondary dominant here or there or whatever, but I don't like music that changes too much in this way.
In that case, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I am just looking for more exotic ideas".
You may not like or understand jazz - that's OK - but the reason we talk about jazz in this context is it's the one western music that has made improvisation its business. It's pretty much dug every outside groove you can think of, in the hunt for new things to say.
So jazz - like it or not - probably has the answers you want... somewhere.

I understand what you say about needing to hear it, which is why I think you need to do a lot of listening - to stuff you don't normally listen to - to find your way towards your goal, and give us something to work from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
I'm curious though, do you know why the 12 bar blues works with pentatonic minor and also the key scale, whereas other things don't?
That's at least the 3rd time you've asked that. What don't you like (or understand) about the answers?
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-13-2013, 06:41 PM
Monk of Funk Monk of Funk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonPR View Post
It only looks that way when you don't understand the language.
Then you need to study the language.
In that case, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I am just looking for more exotic ideas".
You may not like or understand jazz - that's OK - but the reason we talk about jazz in this context is it's the one western music that has made improvisation its business. It's pretty much dug every outside groove you can think of, in the hunt for new things to say.
So jazz - like it or not - probably has the answers you want... somewhere.
I sort of understand the principles of it, in the chord progression way, I just don't like it. Not that I hate it, but I've found that I much prefer diatonic music. I love the improvisation aspect of jazz, but that's all I like about it really. I don't really like the classical rhythms, and I don't like a lot of the chord progressions. It's not that i find them terrible, it's just not what I really like. Miles Davis on the other hand, I really don't like, what I've heard, that's just way too much for me.

I agree that the answers are probably in theory that has to do with Jazz, but it might take me a while to study all of jazz and whole bunch of songs that I really don't like, in order to learn a bunch of stuff that is only really useful for some stuff that is only present in Jazz, and I'd like to avoid that if possible.

Quote:
I understand what you say about needing to hear it, which is why I think you need to do a lot of listening - to stuff you don't normally listen to - to find your way towards your goal, and give us something to work from.
This might be a little tough for me, because I'm not sure where stuff would be that is just some idea I don't normally have, and where stuff is that might be using a concept I don't normally use, until I ear the whole thing out.

But anything you can tell about this improvisation would be really helpful. It's little wing. Basically just Em, but it has those slidy chords in it at the end of the progression, which I forget what they are called, but those are not diatonic I don't think. Although he does slide them up, and they work in a diatonic like pattern when you do that.

What's tough is he'll often go very fast. But any concepts you see/hear, that are not playing Em scale in some way, would be awesome to know.

EDIT: sorry, forgot to mention it's technically in Eb, but that's because he tuned his guitar down a half step, which is annoying, but there you go.

Quote:
That's at least the 3rd time you've asked that. What don't you like (or understand) about the answers?
I must have missed the answer to that question somehow, if you've answered it already. Sorry.

Last edited by Monk of Funk; 11-13-2013 at 06:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-13-2013, 09:39 PM
mr. beaumont mr. beaumont is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,189
Default

Re: monte Montgomery

It's Em. Lots of Em.

It's tough to help you monk...you keep making up names for things..."work in a diatonic like way?" Stuff is either diatonic or not.

I suppose he approaches some things chromatically, sliding in from a half step above or below...i dunno, it's so hard for me to listen to him Butcher that tune...ignoring those beautiful chord changes...for 10 darn minutes. He could benefit from hitting some thirds and sevenths, reminding us it's not just a big wash of E minor...but you don't want to hear that.

Sorry, I get worked up about the way guitar players worship that performance, because I think it's awful, and representative of everything wrong with knowing a song is basically "in a key."

Jimi's solo, about 9 and a half minutes shorter, addresses the chords beautifully. Jimi played changes...Some tunes beg for it...little wing does.
__________________
Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:

http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-13-2013, 10:03 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
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.
Well, again, Amazing Slow Downer or Transcribe will slow the fastest lick out there down to as slow as you want to go. Transcribe will even slow down that Monte M video so you can watch his fingers in slo-motion. Or get an in-person teacher who you can can ask to stop and show you what the just played.

Other than that, I can't really figure out what would help you. You want to learn how to play cool sounds that you don't know already, if I'm reading you right. You either have to come up with those yourself, or learn them from someone else. There are hundreds of books on this stuff, so that's one way. Or find a good player, and take lessons. Or you can pick them up the way most of the best players have, by listening (or these days, by watching on You Tube). That's 4 different approaches, not sure what else there is.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-14-2013, 04:02 AM
JonPR JonPR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
I sort of understand the principles of it, in the chord progression way, I just don't like it. Not that I hate it, but I've found that I much prefer diatonic music. I love the improvisation aspect of jazz, but that's all I like about it really. I don't really like the classical rhythms, and I don't like a lot of the chord progressions. It's not that i find them terrible, it's just not what I really like. Miles Davis on the other hand, I really don't like, what I've heard, that's just way too much for me.
No problem. I was much the same as you when I started out. I quite liked the comical sound of 1920s jazz, but modern jazz was just a baffling noise to me, a private club I had no wish to join.
Much later I happened to meet some pro jazz musicians (and play with one or two of them), whose music (live) blew me away more than old jazz records ever did; then I went to jazz workshops and summer schools, read about it... And I STILL wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of jazz in general.
But I have noticed that it's always way better live than it is on record. I guess you can say that for most music, but it seems particularly so for jazz. It tends to sound dry and dull on recordings; too intellectual, or too cheesy, or too cute. But even the cheesiest old jazz comes alive when it's being played in front of you. And some contemporary jazz will just blow you away like no rock ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R990oiRxy6U
- if jazz had been like that when I was a teenager, my life would have been very different....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rveiwBEOT6o
(love the guy scratching his head at 0:56 )
- and this is jazz too, like I never heard it back then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svzv-YkUzdk
Still - YMMV, and that's normal .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
I agree that the answers are probably in theory that has to do with Jazz, but it might take me a while to study all of jazz and whole bunch of songs that I really don't like, in order to learn a bunch of stuff that is only really useful for some stuff that is only present in Jazz, and I'd like to avoid that if possible.
Again, fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
But anything you can tell about this improvisation would be really helpful. It's little wing. Basically just Em, but it has those slidy chords in it at the end of the progression, which I forget what they are called, but those are not diatonic I don't think. Although he does slide them up, and they work in a diatonic like pattern when you do that.
I hear him using chromatic slides down (like Jimi did only more so).
To me, that's a half-interesting mix of interesting musical ideas and guitar pyrotechnics (which interest me not at all).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
What's tough is he'll often go very fast. But any concepts you see/hear, that are not playing Em scale in some way, would be awesome to know.
Here's what I'd use to begin to answer that:
http://www.seventhstring.com/
- so I suggest you download that (it's free for a month's trial).

You can record streaming audio directly into the program (that's what I'd do), or you can download and convert the youtube (needs other software, takes a little longer) if you want to work with the video too.

Just from an initial listen I'd say he's extending those chromatic chord ideas into chromatic arpeggios on the faster sections - but I can't be sure.

If you can specify a particular time reference in the video, I don't mind examining several seconds-worth of licks here and there for you, but I'm not about to transcribe the whole thing, I don't have the time (or inclination).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk of Funk View Post
I must have missed the answer to that question somehow, if you've answered it already. Sorry.
Posts 34, 50 and (in particular) 61 dealt with it. Sorry if it's not the answer you want, but I don't know how else to answer it.
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen.

Last edited by JonPR; 11-14-2013 at 04:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-14-2013, 11:25 AM
Monk of Funk Monk of Funk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
Re: monte Montgomery

It's Em. Lots of Em.

It's tough to help you monk...you keep making up names for things..."work in a diatonic like way?" Stuff is either diatonic or not.

I suppose he approaches some things chromatically, sliding in from a half step above or below...i dunno, it's so hard for me to listen to him Butcher that tune...ignoring those beautiful chord changes...for 10 darn minutes. He could benefit from hitting some thirds and sevenths, reminding us it's not just a big wash of E minor...but you don't want to hear that.

Sorry, I get worked up about the way guitar players worship that performance, because I think it's awful, and representative of everything wrong with knowing a song is basically "in a key."

Jimi's solo, about 9 and a half minutes shorter, addresses the chords beautifully. Jimi played changes...Some tunes beg for it...little wing does.
I don't find he is ignoring those chord changes at all. He's assuming they exist and are there, and playing different stuff on top. Idk, I find that sometimes when he plays quickly he repeats the same sort of things a little too much on that recording, but that's common. I find this a great guitar tune.

I think you probably wouldn't like listening to me play this song either. Except I would stick a little more to the chords, because I wouldn't have a bass player with me.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-14-2013, 11:32 AM
Monk of Funk Monk of Funk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
Well, again, Amazing Slow Downer or Transcribe will slow the fastest lick out there down to as slow as you want to go. Transcribe will even slow down that Monte M video so you can watch his fingers in slo-motion. Or get an in-person teacher who you can can ask to stop and show you what the just played.

Other than that, I can't really figure out what would help you. You want to learn how to play cool sounds that you don't know already, if I'm reading you right. You either have to come up with those yourself, or learn them from someone else. There are hundreds of books on this stuff, so that's one way. Or find a good player, and take lessons. Or you can pick them up the way most of the best players have, by listening (or these days, by watching on You Tube). That's 4 different approaches, not sure what else there is.
Ya, I guess so, I just figured that there would be common sort of specific things that people like to do at certain times that I could benefit from.

finding a good teacher would be cool, but I'm not really sure how to go about finding one. I think there must be a few around here, but it would be a question of finding them.

I'll try transcribe, but I'm skeptical. I think through the fast parts it won't be able to cope, for chords it won't be able to cope, especially that specific recording, where the audio quality is not the greatest as I recall.

I know you can slow stuff down, but usually for fast licks, that means stretching out the sound so much that it separates too much, and that makes it tough to hear the notes anyway. But I'll try it.

being able to see his hands will help somewhat, that's true. Idk, I'll give it a shot and try to find something cool to rip off in there.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-14-2013, 11:58 AM
Monk of Funk Monk of Funk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonPR View Post
No problem. I was much the same as you when I started out. I quite liked the comical sound of 1920s jazz, but modern jazz was just a baffling noise to me, a private club I had no wish to join.
Much later I happened to meet some pro jazz musicians (and play with one or two of them), whose music (live) blew me away more than old jazz records ever did; then I went to jazz workshops and summer schools, read about it... And I STILL wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of jazz in general.
But I have noticed that it's always way better live than it is on record. I guess you can say that for most music, but it seems particularly so for jazz. It tends to sound dry and dull on recordings; too intellectual, or too cheesy, or too cute. But even the cheesiest old jazz comes alive when it's being played in front of you. And some contemporary jazz will just blow you away like no rock ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R990oiRxy6U
- if jazz had been like that when I was a teenager, my life would have been very different....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rveiwBEOT6o
(love the guy scratching his head at 0:56 )
- and this is jazz too, like I never heard it back then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svzv-YkUzdk
Still - YMMV, and that's normal .
Ya, I'm not a big fan of that sort stuff. I like the first one the most though out of those. Reminds me a little of medeski martin and wood. Some of their songs I find are pretty cool But I'm not a big fan of most of it. It just, doesn't move me. You know what I mean? doesn't make me feel like "dancing".


Quote:
Again, fair enough.
I hear him using chromatic slides down (like Jimi did only more so).
To me, that's a half-interesting mix of interesting musical ideas and guitar pyrotechnics (which interest me not at all).
Here's what I'd use to begin to answer that:
http://www.seventhstring.com/
- so I suggest you download that (it's free for a month's trial).

You can record streaming audio directly into the program (that's what I'd do), or you can download and convert the youtube (needs other software, takes a little longer) if you want to work with the video too.
What do you mean "pyrotechnics"?

Ya, transcribe was suggested to me by someone else. The last time I saw it in action was quite a while ago now, so I suspect it has improved, but I'm still a bit skeptical that it will be able to handle this sort of thing.

Quote:

Just from an initial listen I'd say he's extending those chromatic chord ideas into chromatic arpeggios on the faster sections - but I can't be sure.
he definitely does that in the slower sections also.

Quote:
If you can specify a particular time reference in the video, I don't mind examining several seconds-worth of licks here and there for you, but I'm not about to transcribe the whole thing, I don't have the time (or inclination).
Thanks I'll let you know if I get into any issues. Hopefully I'll find something cool and be able to transcribe it, and apply it in other situations nicely, or learn something from it. As you can tell, I'm pretty picky when it comes to stuff like this. I might use this to figure out some Tommy emmanuel blues stuff also, if it works out.

Quote:
Posts 34, 50 and (in particular) 61 dealt with it. Sorry if it's not the answer you want, but I don't know how else to answer it.
I read 61, and it is more than that I think. That sound may have come from african tribes, that's possible. But, it just sounds great.

I feel there must be some sort of theory explanation as to why this different scale, that uses notes outside of the chords, and the key, works so nicely all the way through the progression.

You take any other ethinic sound like arabic or something, and if that layered on top of some chord progression that was diatonic to a key, and for which that ethnic tune sounds great over, and is not diatonic to the key, then I would expect it would need the same reasoning.

It might be a special case, but I feel like there must be a theory explanation for it. And that might be useful in snippets, if I can recognize that to happen for a short time through a progression, and then maybe another short time, with a different pentatonic or something.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-14-2013, 12:56 PM
Monk of Funk Monk of Funk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 962
Default

Wow, the algorithms for slowing audio in transcribe are very good. Better than most other things I've tried.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > PLAY and Write

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=