Songs to practice modes

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

What do you mean "pyrotechnics"?

Fireworks. Displays of flashy technical virtuosity.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

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.

Not sure what you mean by "handle"?
What problems did you have (or see) before?

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

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.

Not as far as I know. And I've been playing blues for 48 years, reading about it nearly as long, and studying theory (on and off) nearly as long.

I did mention the idea of "septimal" or "7-limit" tuning, which is a blues theory I came across a few years ago. It suggests that there are blue notes just flat of b3, close to the b5, and just flat of b7. But it doesn't deal with what I think of as the most distinctive blue note, between m3 and M3, which has no pure interval counterpart that I'm aware of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-limit_tuning
And in any case, my belief is that the secret to blues lies in the movability of the pitches, not in any ideal "pure" intervals. (Blues singers don't tend to settle on those in-between notes. If they settle on - sustain - any pitches, they're likely to be chord tones, even if they do swoop up to them.)

Remember that music theory is not designed to explain why something "sounds good". The answer to that lies in some kind of combination of psychology, culture, biology, etc.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

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.

I agree - a similar reasoning anyway.
IOW, a lot of the effect of ethnic music (such as arabic) is to do with microtonal pitch embellishment - as if the music is adopting speech-like sounds, rather than mechanically fixed intonation.
The blues effect could be as simple as that: finding melodic sounds somewhere between fixed pitches and the natural ups and downs of speech or emotional vocalisations such as weeping, sighing or laughing. (Except, of course, that it's a particular set of pitch variations, not just any old random ones.)

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

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.

I still think - in dealing with western fixed pitches - you'd learn a lot by studying conventional theory; either classical or jazz.
Don't expect it to tell you why music sounds the way it does, but it will give you a good overview of how it works.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

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

Yep. Transcribe seems to be a well-kept secret. Download You Tube videos as quicktime, and try opening those, for a really amazing transcription experience. You might have to work on your ear, but especially with a video, there shouldn't be much that you can't figure out. The spectrum and keyboard are also useful for verifying what you think you hear. It's not perfect, but the spectrum is usually correct.

[AX17609]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Yep. Transcribe seems to be a well-kept secret. Download You Tube videos as quicktime, and try opening those, for a really amazing transcription experience. You might have to work on your ear, but especially with a video, there shouldn't be much that you can't figure out. The spectrum and keyboard are also useful for verifying what you think you hear. It's not perfect, but the spectrum is usually correct.

Stupid question: how do you download YouTube videos as Quicktime?

Never mind, I figured it out. On a Mac, just get a free copy of "Skysoft iTube Studio". It was so easy that I downloaded a video faster than I figured out how to do it. It just did it; I didn't have to think about it. Then I clicked on the downloaded file and it loaded itself into my copy of The Amazing Slowdowner. I'm still not exactly sure what happened.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Yep. Transcribe seems to be a well-kept secret. Download You Tube videos as quicktime, and try opening those, for a really amazing transcription experience. You might have to work on your ear, but especially with a video, there shouldn't be much that you can't figure out. The spectrum and keyboard are also useful for verifying what you think you hear. It's not perfect, but the spectrum is usually correct.

Ya, how I am using this, is basically just a tool to slow it down, with that handy looping box. It well setup for doing this. The other things are helpful also, for when you have trouble, but I prefer trying as best I can to do it by ear. With guitar, it helps to use your ears more also, because the same note can be played in a couple of places, so listening to the timber of the strings, can help you figure out wher they are on the fretboard.

Oh ok, thx, it's quicktime. Not a big fan of quicktime, just because of how "apple" it is. Kind of a restrictive video type, or uncommon, but I think my vlc player should be able to save in quicktime. I had tried mp4, but that didn't work.

EDIT: I don't know why companies use stuff like .mov. It's by far the greatest flaw of this software. Even if you are on a mac, it's a pain for stuff like Youtube videos.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Fireworks. Displays of flashy technical virtuosity.

there is a bit of that, but I find this piece is musically good. It's not like some guy hammering arpeggios or running through scales or something like that.

Not sure what you mean by "handle"?
What problems did you have (or see) before?

just inaccurate. not able to slow down the music enough without chopping it up too much. It has surpassed my expectations though.

Not as far as I know. And I've been playing blues for 48 years, reading about it nearly as long, and studying theory (on and off) nearly as long.

I did mention the idea of "septimal" or "7-limit" tuning, which is a blues theory I came across a few years ago. It suggests that there are blue notes just flat of b3, close to the b5, and just flat of b7. But it doesn't deal with what I think of as the most distinctive blue note, between m3 and M3, which has no pure interval counterpart that I'm aware of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-limit_tuning
And in any case, my belief is that the secret to blues lies in the movability of the pitches, not in any ideal "pure" intervals. (Blues singers don't tend to settle on those in-between notes. If they settle on - sustain - any pitches, they're likely to be chord tones, even if they do swoop up to them.)

Remember that music theory is not designed to explain why something "sounds good". The answer to that lies in some kind of combination of psychology, culture, biology, etc.

I am not wondering why it "sounds good" But I know that I can play the scale of the key of C with diatonic progressions in the key of C. I know I can do that, and that it works, and that's "because" there is this thing called the key scale, and all the chords are part of that, and I can apply that to other instances.

Why is there a key scale? idk. Partially due to the harmonic nature of vibrations and partly due to how evolved perhaps. But there is sort of a "why". I feel that there must be a similar explanation for blues. There must be a few progressions that work this way. The secret is the progression somehow. I don't know what it is, but, I feel there must be something. It's not for nothing that on a particular progression all of a sudden a particular scale works which is not all part of the key, and not part of the chords either. There must be some explanation I think.

I agree - a similar reasoning anyway.
IOW, a lot of the effect of ethnic music (such as arabic) is to do with microtonal pitch embellishment - as if the music is adopting speech-like sounds, rather than mechanically fixed intonation.
The blues effect could be as simple as that: finding melodic sounds somewhere between fixed pitches and the natural ups and downs of speech or emotional vocalisations such as weeping, sighing or laughing. (Except, of course, that it's a particular set of pitch variations, not just any old random ones.)

That may be, but what interests me about the blues, is more why that pentatonic minor all of a sudden works for the whole progression, even though its notes are not part of the key, nor part of the chords, but it works the whole way through. The whole microtonal aspect of it doesn't interest me as much from a theory standpoint.

I still think - in dealing with western fixed pitches - you'd learn a lot by studying conventional theory; either classical or jazz.
Don't expect it to tell you why music sounds the way it does, but it will give you a good overview of how it works.

Which parts specifically do you think I would find most useful?

See what you can make of this part of monte's little wing. The next 10 seconds or so.

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

there is a bit of that, but I find this piece is musically good. It's not like some guy hammering arpeggios or running through scales or something like that. just inaccurate. not able to slow down the music enough without chopping it up too much. It has surpassed my expectations though.
I am not wondering why it "sounds good" But I know that I can play the scale of the key of C with diatonic progressions in the key of C. I know I can do that, and that it works, and that's "because" there is this thing called the key scale, and all the chords are part of that, and I can apply that to other instances.

Why is there a key scale? idk. Partially due to the harmonic nature of vibrations and partly due to how evolved perhaps. But there is sort of a "why". I feel that there must be a similar explanation for blues. There must be a few progressions that work this way. The secret is the progression somehow. I don't know what it is, but, I feel there must be something. It's not for nothing that on a particular progression all of a sudden a particular scale works which is not all part of the key, and not part of the chords either. There must be some explanation I think.


That may be, but what interests me about the blues, is more why that pentatonic minor all of a sudden works for the whole progression, even though its notes are not part of the key, nor part of the chords, but it works the whole way through. The whole microtonal aspect of it doesn't interest me as much from a theory standpoint.




Which parts specifically do you think I would find most useful?

See what you can make of this part of monte's little wing. The next 10 seconds or so.

pentatonic with chromatic passing tones, small three note chords sliding down chromatically. That's really all it is.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

pentatonic with chromatic passing tones, small three note chords sliding down chromatically. That's really all it is.

I'm not sure you actually took the time to ear this out.

I mean technically, you could say this about anything over a diatonic progression. You can only be one half step out of the key. But I think that is an oversimplified way to look at it.

A secondary dominant can be viewed as just an outside note added on also, but thinking of it as a secondary dominant adds more useful information to what happened, and can be useful in other situations.

In this passage, he does things that seem to me more than just looking at it like simple chromaticism outside of the key, and pentatonics.

[stanron]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I'm not sure you actually took the time to ear this out.

Wow. It's not that difficult. Which part of this does not match Jeff's description?

E╓─0──12──10───7──6p─5───────────────┬──────────────10─┬─────────────────┐
B╟─────────────────┼─────8p5─8───────┼─7───────────────┼───────7─7─8─────┤
G╟─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─7───────────────┼───────7─7───────┤
D╟─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
A╟─────────────────┼─────────────9───┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
E╙─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┘

. .1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + . 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + . 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + . 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + .

[Doug Young]

Monk, you're thinking about this WAY too hard. It's a safe bet that Monte isn't thinking music theory (or calculus :-)) while he's playing. If anything, he's thinking Em pentatonic. This sounds like pretty simple stuff. He's just throwing in a few passing tones. He's probably not analyzing or thinking anything, he's just playing. He can hear what he wants to play, knows how to translate it into where he puts his fingers, and also knows so many licks that he can throw them out without thinking. Complex analysis isn't the way you play music, any more than you decide what to say by diagramming sentences.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Monk, you're thinking about this WAY too hard. It's a safe bet that Monte isn't thinking music theory (or calculus :-)) while he's playing. If anything, he's thinking Em pentatonic. This sounds like pretty simple stuff. He's just throwing in a few passing tones. He's probably not analyzing or thinking anything, he's just playing. He can hear what he wants to play, knows how to translate it into where he puts his fingers, and also knows so many licks that he can throw them out without thinking. Complex analysis isn't the way you play music, any more than you decide what to say by diagramming sentences.

Lol, it's funny, because this is usually what I tell people. I know he's not doing calculus or anything like that. I'm just saying that thinking of it as Em pentatonic with some chromaticism, is over simplifying it.

I could say "the key with chromaticism" to describe every single solo, and every single way anyone has ever played any diatonic progression.

While it is not strictly false, and must be. I think we can learn a lot from others and how they play, and how they view things.

It might be something like, "I like how adding a third to the iii chord sounds sometimes" great, that's information I could use. I can listen to it, and recognize the sound, and call for it when I want. Just general "chromaticism" is not useful for me to learning.

I do improvise, and I am no slouch, I don't do calculus when I play either, but sometimes I'll come across some chord that works in certain positions in the key, or something, and I can use that.

"to name is to know" -Socrates.

It might be "chromaticism" but if I don't give it a specific name, and context, and what have you, it makes it difficult to use.

That might be a lick. I'm with you there, but that lick works in a specific way, you couldn't just play it anywhere, it is a lick specific to a location of the key, or over a specific chord in a certain position perhaps. And there might only be one cool part of that lick that is a bit unusual, that you can use in other cases where the pertinent scenario is similar, like on a V, or something like that.

I'm fine with licks. I'm just saying "key scale with chromaticism" includes every single song ever. So, if I'm gonna study and improve that information is not really useful, and way over simplified. Were it not, I'd be finished studying music on day 1.

For me, learning the key scale is quite complex. I look at it, from a chord way, and from a scale way, even different approaches to the scale, and it is all the same pattern, but if I play a passage, I might not be thinking of it, like just the scale, maybe i'd be thinking about it as chords within the scale, or doing an arpeggio, even though it's all the key scale. If it's just me playing, I will do that often enough. If I'm playing over something else holding the chords down, I won't think of it that way as much. But, idk, although I agree, strictly speaking you can call it the key and chromatic notes, but I think that looking at ways it works can be useful also.

Maybe my original hope that there would be some scales that could be used in this fashion, was wrong, but I think there is still use in looking at things more than just the key and chromatic notes. It is technically that, and I can play pretty much every sound I can think of that way, if it is slow enough, but if it gets to fast runs, then my mind can't work that fast, and also, looking at new things from different angles, can help give me new ideas. "key and chromatic notes" describes what I do already, and also other things I don't do. But I want to learn new things I don't do. There is some of that within those 10 seconds, I believe.

In my mind it is very much key scale. Very much. I won't deny that. I mean, the key is key, the most important thing to learn. But I find that there is more to it than that also, and even within that, there are some specific licks that are cool, and I could describe those using theory.

You what i mean? Anything over a diatonic progression will be the key and chromatic notes. A secondary dominant is that. But looking at it as asecondary dominant, is also useful information. I will learn anything. Take in whatever I can. If it's just a cool lick, then I'll take that. If it something only useful a small part of the time, I'll take that, if it can be used a lot, I'll take that.

Now, I'm not trying to build music by writing on a sheet of paper. I'm not gonna think "oh a V chord, I'll play xyz" My mind is occupied with music already. But, acknowledging, the sound of the V chord, and the role it plays, and idk, something that works relative to that in some way, something I don't normally think about, if I can acknowledge that, and recognize the sound, and name it, then I could maybe use it.

I'm all about the sound, and the ideas of music as music, not theory. I just am interested in learning new ideas, and I would like to "name them" in the context of stuff I know.

If I didn't know about keys, and chords, and someone showed me a lick. That would be useless information really. It would just be a lick. That lick is useful only in certain places relative to the key, and stuff like that. So, to me, context is important. Attaching things in a relative way is important.

This passage, is interesting to me in that way, not in the pentatonic beginning part, that's a common sort of thing, but right after that.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by stanron

Wow. It's not that difficult. Which part of this does not match Jeff's description?

E╓─0──12──10───7──6p─5───────────────┬──────────────10─┬─────────────────┐
B╟─────────────────┼─────8p5─8───────┼─7───────────────┼───────7─7─8─────┤
G╟─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─7───────────────┼───────7─7───────┤
D╟─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
A╟─────────────────┼─────────────9───┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
E╙─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┘

. .1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + . 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + . 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + . 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + .

Ya, that part is not so tough. But you didn't transcribe it quite right i think.

The part I find interesting is right after that part, and right before he starts sliding up diatonic chords starting on ii7 up to IV, but sliding up on the A string, and not playing the low E.

This is only goes until about 5 seconds into the sequence, it's the next 5 seconds that I find more interesting. This part is basically just pentatonic, except the best part of it, imo, that you left out is the 10 fret that falls right into that 9, which is part of the m7 chord that he completes with those 7s you put there, but dropped one. (he doesn't play the root though, but the rest is an m7 sort of shape, or D, however you want to look at it, I guess it's more D actually, but to me, visually it's sort of the m7 shape without the root, which is D really.)

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

pentatonic with chromatic passing tones, small three note chords sliding down chromatically. That's really all it is.

I think I understand now, you meant only the beginning part. Whereas I was referring more to the part right after it is all pentatonicky.

I kind of put that pentatonicky part there, to make the phrase have more cohesion, or else it not make much sense musically, and would be a bit licke scratching your fingernails on a blackboard.

Listened to some tracks on your site. You are very much into jazz style I see. If you play a diatonic progression, do you think of it only as the key? or do you have other ways of going about it, that you picked up from your jazz background?

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I think I understand now, you meant only the beginning part. Whereas I was referring more to the part right after it is all pentatonicky.

I kind of put that pentatonicky part there, to make the phrase have more cohesion, or else it not make much sense musically, and would be a bit licke scratching your fingernails on a blackboard.

Listened to some tracks on your site. You are very much into jazz style I see. If you play a diatonic progression, do you think of it only as the key? or do you have other ways of going about it, that you picked up from your jazz background?

Thanks for listening, yeah, I like jazz...that's my bag. So when you ask your question, I definitely don't think of it only as "key." The only time I think key is on fast tunes with blazing changes, then I might simplify into "key," in that sense, thinking different keys over different sections or "movements."

Which means I'm a lousy rock player Well, I dunno if lousy, but see every chord as a new environment, with new possible extensions or tensions that will work, be they diatonic or not. I guess Monte's doing some of that here--a Hendrixy approach, to an extent--like we mentioned earlier where he throws a C# on the Bm chord...not diatonic to the parent key, Em, but it sounds good.

I find "key" generally unimportant...to me the chords and the way they move tell me what extensions I can use. Key goes out the window. So if I'm just screwing around, my rock playing comes out as Hendrixy all the time, even if the tune might call for a simpler appoach...if I play a rock gig (rare, but it happens) I have to really actively shut off my jazz brain.

I think of improvisation like Lee Konitz wrote abut, having different "layers." Simplest is the melody itself, then the melody with embellishment, arpeggios with melody, without, chord scales, etc...going from micro to macro. To me, thinking "key" is the most "macro" and for the music I play, rarely the best choice.

I need to listen to some of what you're playing to get an idea of the idiom you're working in. What should I check out--youtube or soundcloud? Any tracks in particular. That will give me a better read as to what you're trying to do.

As for the second half of that montgomery bit, he's playing small chords...he seems to know what the chords are of the moment, and he's sliding into them from above or below...sort of, he's not exactly hitting the changes at the same time the bass player does... This is where he loses me...because my ears wanna hear that harmony-- Bm...Bbm, Am, C...it's the best part of the song, to my ears...when he gets down in the lower register you can hear him play a quick Bm, Bbm, Am (rootless) but for much of the tune he ignores it, especially when he steps on the distortion.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Thanks for listening, yeah, I like jazz...that's my bag. So when you ask your question, I definitely don't think of it only as "key." The only time I think key is on fast tunes with blazing changes, then I might simplify into "key," in that sense, thinking different keys over different sections or "movements."

Which means I'm a lousy rock player Well, I dunno if lousy, but see every chord as a new environment, with new possible extensions or tensions that will work, be they diatonic or not. I guess Monte's doing some of that here--a Hendrixy approach, to an extent--like we mentioned earlier where he throws a C# on the Bm chord...not diatonic to the parent key, Em, but it sounds good.

I find "key" generally unimportant...to me the chords and the way they move tell me what extensions I can use. Key goes out the window. So if I'm just screwing around, my rock playing comes out as Hendrixy all the time, even if the tune might call for a simpler appoach...if I play a rock gig (rare, but it happens) I have to really actively shut off my jazz brain.

I think of improvisation like Lee Konitz wrote abut, having different "layers." Simplest is the melody itself, then the melody with embellishment, arpeggios with melody, without, chord scales, etc...going from micro to macro. To me, thinking "key" is the most "macro" and for the music I play, rarely the best choice.

I need to listen to some of what you're playing to get an idea of the idiom you're working in. What should I check out--youtube or soundcloud? Any tracks in particular. That will give me a better read as to what you're trying to do.

As for the second half of that montgomery bit, he's playing small chords...he seems to know what the chords are of the moment, and he's sliding into them from above or below...sort of, he's not exactly hitting the changes at the same time the bass player does... This is where he loses me...because my ears wanna hear that harmony-- Bm...Bbm, Am, C...it's the best part of the song, to my ears...when he gets down in the lower register you can hear him play a quick Bm, Bbm, Am (rootless) but for much of the tune he ignores it, especially when he steps on the distortion.

I see, so, if you play a diatonic progression, you need to shut off your Chord per chord environment way of thinking?

Probably the best I have up right now, would be my cover of alicia keys' If I ain't got you. It's sort of a cover, I really kind of ignore the melody of the tune, and just mess around in the progression, which is kind of a no no I guess, but there you go. I have another one uploading as we speak which is an original, but that's pretty much it for just guitar improvisation typed tracks. My soundcloud has some produced stuff, and the guitar tracks are all basically songs with lyrics, as are the others on my YouTube.

I could record and upload some little wing though, that might be a better idea.

I'm not sure what I'm after to be honest. I guess I want to be able to play fast, without boring myself, add more kind of chordish things that aren't simply added extension to the existing chords, and just generally things that are different. Sometimes I'll play, and kind of go on autopilot and do stuff that I'm used to, especially if I try and go fast. I'm just looking for, "fresh" I guess. I guess I'm kind of just hopeful that fresh can be more than just different phrases using how I currently view the fretboard, which I'm becoming more skeptical about now, but I'm down with some of those too.

Maybe even little things, like one example would be how if your playing a major like a G in little wing, that's one step away from the next Am chord in the progression, it can be cool to sharpen the root, and turn it into a diminished chord, and then play that Am. It's a little thing, and technically just a chromatic shift, but it is a particular one with a particular sound, and I find that can be cool. Anything like that, or really absolutely anything that's news to me, would be awesome.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

See what you can make of this part of monte's little wing. The next 10 seconds or so.

Here's what I get, from 0:49 up to 1:02:

   Em                              Bm                                            Bm  Bbm Am(add4)
E╓─0──12──10───-──--──────────────|───────────10──────────────────────────────────────────10─────|
B╟────────────10─--8──────────────|7───────────────────────────7───7──────────────12──11──10─────|
G╟────────────────--───9───7──────|7───────────────────────────9───9───7──────────11──10──9──────|
D╟───────────────────────9──────-─|9───────────────────────────7───7───7──────────12──11──10─────|
A╟-─────────────────────────10\9──|9───────────────────────────9───9───9───────────────────────--|
E╙────────────────────────────────|7─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────|
   3   .   .   .   4   .   .   .   1   .   .   .   2   .   .   .   3   .   .   .   4   .   .   .   
 
  (Am)                                                             (G)                       (F)
E╓─8─-──--──--──────────────-──--──────────────-──--──────────────|-──--──────/7────\5─────────-──--──────────
B╟─8─────8───-p7─--7─\─6───5────────-──--──5───────7────-─-8──--──|7─h8───────/5──-─\3───────────1p0────────
G╟─8─────7h9──p7-──7-\─6───5──────────-──--5───────7───-───9─-─\─7|7--──────────────────-─────---0───────
D╟─7─────7h9─-p7─--7─\─6───5────────-──--──5───────7───10-──-9\8\7|7-h9───────/7────\5───────-3──────────
A╟-────-──--──────────────-──--────5──h7───7──/8───9-──--─────────|─-────10p0───────────-──--─────────────
E╙────-──--──────────────-──--──────────────-──--──────────────-──|--──────────────-──--─────────────────────
   1   .   .   .   2   .   .   .   3   .   .   .   4   .   .   .   1  .  .  .  2  .  .  .  3  .  .  .  4

As Jeff says, those chromatic shifts are mostly triad shapes, with the odd embellishment.

Eg, on the Am chord, he adds a D-Db-C triadic slide (rootless Bm7-Bbm7-Am7 if you like) echoing the previous descent from Bm via Bbm to Am. On beat 4 of the Am bar, it's back to a D (Bm7) shape, and up to a C before hammering on to the G from the D shape on fret 7. (BTW, he clearly plays an Am7b5 chord on beat 1 - xx7888 - which sounds like a mistake to me, and is maybe why he re-asserts the Am7 shape in the rest of the bar.)

On beat 2 of the G bar he plays that distinctive "Hendrixism" of the sliding sus2 chord (up to Asus2 and back to Gsus2).

Of course, this is all based on thorough knowledge of the fretboard: all the potential shapes for each chord in any position (including rootless and partial ones); potential diatonic extensions (eg 7ths or 4ths on those minor chords); and - in this case - respectful nods towards Hendrix's chordal style (those sus2 stacked 5th chords).