How has learning scales helped you?

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I tend to give them note names, and arabic numbers relative to the chord(s).
Roman numerals I'd use for chords, but not consciously while playing. I tend to think chord tones first, note names second - while being aware of key and which notes are chromatic.

I would find that confusing also. Especially if I wanted to play chords other than the chord that's playing. Not just extensions, but other chords altogether. For me the sound of a note comes from it's position in the key, and where it is relative the chord that's playing doesn't matter. Kind of like for dressing I would prefer to name colors relative the lighting in the room, rather than the colors of your shirt. Because the lighting is what determines what the colors look like. Whether I want to put a shirt with pants depends on what the lighting made the shirt and pants look like, and if I want that matchup. In different lighting the same shirt and pants may or may not go well together, so I don't care about their relationship.

For example, a ii9 sounds nice, but not a iii9. Or a Imaj7 or a IVmaj7 is great, but not a Vmaj7. so, maj7 is not the key piece of information there, to me. I, IV, or V is.

I just need to know what the pattern is, and I'm good to go. Sometimes the pattern changes a bit on the go, but it's usually not so bad, and is usually the same pattern just somewhere else, or a very similar variation of it, usually harmonic minor shape.

I could very happily solo over entire tunes without ever really knowing what any of the chords were. If I have to solo, and carry the tune though, then I like to know what the chords are.

I never pay attention to note names really, unless it's the name of a chord, which I use if I need to play the same chord far away. Otherwise it's degree, because knowing I am play Em, doesn't tell me anything about anything, except for being information I can use to know how to play the same chord but in the other grips I use. However, vi, tells me a lot. It tells me where all the other inside notes are, what the 3nps pattern in that neighbourhood is, what the box patter in that neighbourhood is, the pentatonic in whole tones, and in box, and all the other diatonic caged chords in the area.

vi is the true name of that thing I'm playing. Em, is just where it is on the fretboard. but vi if it's on the 8th fret rooted on low E, is a tough way to find vi chord rooted on the A string visually. It's a little too far for my brain to visualize the whole pattern. If I solo down to it, I might be alright, because I know where vi is in box, and in 3nps, but knowing the chord is Cm makes it a little easier and is more dependable. Especially because I might lose track of what degree I'm on, and a lot of the patterns are the same, so if I wander and don't go through a telltale part of the pattern, I might not know where vi is anymore. So, if I need to carry the rhythm section while I'm soloing, I like to know both. If I just solo, I don't care about anything except the pattern. If I lose track of where I am, I can easily ear myself out to a telltale part of the pattern, and I'm good. I don't need to know if it's Am key and not C, or what chord is playing at what time. I just need to locate the pattern as soon as possible, and I'm good to go.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I would find that confusing also. Especially if I wanted to play chords other than the chord that's playing. Not just extensions, but other chords altogether.

But superimposed chords always work as extensions or alterations on the chord that's playing.
I'm not counting subs, of course, which replace the chord that was there.
There's no such thing as two harmonies at the same time. It's always perceived as one thing, and is likely to relate to the given root or bass note.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

For me the sound of a note comes from it's position in the key, and where it is relative the chord that's playing doesn't matter.

Yes, I get that. I'd say it varies though. Sometimes the overall key predominates, sometimes the current chord. It really depends how long that chord lasts.
In quick changing sequences - 1 chord or more per bar - key predominates, and melody or improvisation relates more to that; although it still relates to the chords in some perceptible way. A line that only related to the key and not to the chords would sound odd, and probably "wrong", unless it was very convincing in its own right.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Kind of like for dressing I would prefer to name colors relative the lighting in the room, rather than the colors of your shirt. Because the lighting is what determines what the colors look like.

Sure.
But I see the chords as providing that changing light on stuff that remains the same (the key scale). A G note on an F chord in key of C sounds different from a G note on a C chord. It's still V of the key, of course, but the chord puts a different light on it. On the F chord it acquires a "9th" colour, on top of its "V" colour. The significance of that might vary, but it's always there.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

For example, a ii9 sounds nice, but not a iii9. Or a Imaj7 or a IVmaj7 is great, but not a Vmaj7. so, maj7 is not the key piece of information there, to me. I, IV, or V is.

Right. Diatonics come first, no argument there!
(In fact a major 9 on a iii chord can sound good - I always think of Little Wing there, but only because I don't know any other example! - but a maj7 on a V is just wrong in all kinds of ways.)
I mean, if I choose to play an E note on a Dm chord (key of C), I choose that because it's the 9th of the chord, while being aware (obviously) is the 3rd of the key. The Dm gives that note a distinctive flavour (or colour).

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I could very happily solo over entire tunes without ever really knowing what any of the chords were.

I'd say that depends on the type of song. It can certainly apply to blues, and to other simple 3-chord songs. (The tonic major pent works fine throughout most gospel/soul tunes.)

On songs with more chord movement (secondary chords, modulations etc), I'd say your ear would have to guide you, or it would simply sound wrong at certain points. You may be following the chords without being aware of it.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I never pay attention to note names really, unless it's the name of a chord, which I use if I need to play the same chord far away. Otherwise it's degree, because knowing I am play Em, doesn't tell me anything about anything, except for being information I can use to know how to play the same chord but in the other grips I use. However, vi, tells me a lot. It tells me where all the other inside notes are, what the 3nps pattern in that neighbourhood is, what the box patter in that neighbourhood is, the pentatonic in whole tones, and in box, and all the other diatonic caged chords in the area.

Well that's pretty much the same for me.
I see the key scale first, but as outlined by chord shapes all over the neck. I have a few positions I prefer for particular chords, but I know the arpeggios all over.
So for any song, I have a kind of "route map" of the fretboard - not one route, but a map showing all the options. If the key is G and there's an Em chord, I know it's "vi" (and what the notes are), but that's not really part of my thinking. I'm making phrases from notes with an awareness of their sound relative to both the key and the chord - and also thinking about targeting the phrase on a following chord, if the phrase lasts that long.
The Em arpeggio kind of "lights up" on the fretboard, against the background of the G major scale pattern (the whole neck pattern, broken dimly into the CAGED positions I learned it from). So my solo is kind of picking my way through that route map.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

vi is the true name of that thing I'm playing. Em, is just where it is on the fretboard. but vi if it's on the 8th fret rooted on low E, is a tough way to find vi chord rooted on the A string visually. It's a little too far for my brain to visualize the whole pattern.

I can do that, but I visualise it in chunks related to the CAGED chord shapes. They're major shapes, obviously, but I can see the minors in there too.
For Em, I'd tend to instinctively for the 3 CAGED shapes ("Em", frets 0 & 12, "Dm", frets 2 & 14, "Am" fret 7), but I can link those positions with arpeggios. But I might well just choose a G chord shape and treat the Em (for solo purposes) as a rootless Em7. Eg, if I'm on 7th fret, the "Am" shape for Em and the "C" shape for G coincide (probably my "go to" place for soloing around an Em, especially in key of G). I think of the chord names btw, not the shape names .

I don't use 3nps patterns, in fact I don't really think in scale patterns at all. It's all chord shapes and added notes (from the key scale).

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

But superimposed chords always work as extensions or alterations on the chord that's playing.
I'm not counting subs, of course, which replace the chord that was there. There's no such thing as two harmonies at the same time. It's always perceived as one thing, and is likely to relate to the given root or bass note.

I don't think that's always the case. You can do chord leading, the same way you can do voice leading. And anyway that doesn't help me. It's so many steps of information to think of what chords could be what extensions and then whether I want that over a chord or not. It's easier to see a chord shape and know its degree, and its sound, and either play it or not based on that.

Yes, I get that. I'd say it varies though. Sometimes the overall key predominates, sometimes the current chord. It really depends how long that chord lasts.

For me the key always comes first. Anything else misses the point of music, for what music means to me.

In quick changing sequences - 1 chord or more per bar - key predominates, and melody or improvisation relates more to that; although it still relates to the chords in some perceptible way. A line that only related to the key and not to the chords would sound odd, and probably "wrong", unless it was very convincing in its own right.

That's not true. I play that way exclusively. You can often even repeat the same 3 notes over and over as the chords change behind you, and that can sound amazing, just like a pedal tone. A melodic pedal tone. I don't know how I would ever do that, if I changed the way I organized everything on every chord change. That would be too complicated for me.

Sure.
But I see the chords as providing that changing light on stuff that remains the same (the key scale). A G note on an F chord in key of C sounds different from a G note on a C chord.

not to me. To me a G note in the key of C always sounds like a G note in the key of C. So does an F A and C. All of their characters come from the key. Then its just a matter of when I want which character. An F chord is F A C character together. If I want the G character on top, I want the G character on top. But the F chord does not change how a G sounds to me. It just is influential on my desire of adding the G sound or not. That was what I meant in the analogy. The chords don't alter the character of the notes, the key does. I just desire which notes I want at any given time, given their character that the key has given them.

Right. Diatonics come first, no argument there!
(In fact a major 9 on a iii chord can sound good - I always think of Little Wing there, but only because I don't know any other example! - but a maj7 on a V is just wrong in all kinds of ways.)
I mean, if I choose to play an E note on a Dm chord (key of C), I choose that because it's the 9th of the chord, while being aware (obviously) is the 3rd of the key. The Dm gives that note a distinctive flavour (or colour).
I'd say that depends on the type of song. It can certainly apply to blues, and to other simple 3-chord songs. (The tonic major pent works fine throughout most gospel/soul tunes.)

that's the opposite of how I look at it. I don't look at the Dm giving color to the 9. I look at it as there is a Dm, and I can add a note of the key, which will sound a certain way, and I know what that sound will be, and I want that. Sure, it makes a Dm9, and I'm definitely very aware of that as I play harmony and solo at the same time, but, it's not something I ever think about. Like I said, I can solo just fine without knowing what the chords are. I just need to hear the song, and I will want a melody phrase, and I will know how to play it by looking at the guitar. I don't need to know the names of the chords for any of that. It's not necessary information, so it doesn't represent an important facet of how I organize sounds on my fretboard.

All I need to do is play the ideas in my mind. I need to locate them on the fretboard. Organizing according to key makes that easy. Organizing according to chords makes that more difficult for me, and also would make me need to know the chords, which is not actually necessary for playing great solos.

On songs with more chord movement (secondary chords, modulations etc), I'd say your ear would have to guide you, or it would simply sound wrong at certain points. You may be following the chords without being aware of it.

The chords obviously always influence what I choose to play. I just never care to take theoretcial note of it. Obviously if there is a modulation or what have you, I will accomodate for that. The pattern changes at that point. It either slides over, or becomes harmonic minor, or what have you. And my ear will know it is coming, and my phrasing will take that into consideration, and I still won't need to know what the chords are. I'll just need to know what happened to the pattern.

Well that's pretty much the same for me.
I see the key scale first, but as outlined by chord shapes all over the neck. I have a few positions I prefer for particular chords, but I know the arpeggios all over.
So for any song, I have a kind of "route map" of the fretboard - not one route, but a map showing all the options. If the key is G and there's an Em chord, I know it's "vi" (and what the notes are), but that's not really part of my thinking. I'm making phrases from notes with an awareness of their sound relative to both the key and the chord - and also thinking about targeting the phrase on a following chord, if the phrase lasts that long.
The Em arpeggio kind of "lights up" on the fretboard, against the background of the G major scale pattern (the whole neck pattern, broken dimly into the CAGED positions I learned it from). So my solo is kind of picking my way through that route map.
I can do that, but I visualise it in chunks related to the CAGED chord shapes. They're major shapes, obviously, but I can see the minors in there too.
For Em, I'd tend to instinctively for the 3 CAGED shapes ("Em", frets 0 & 12, "Dm", frets 2 & 14, "Am" fret 7), but I can link those positions with arpeggios. But I might well just choose a G chord shape and treat the Em (for solo purposes) as a rootless Em7. Eg, if I'm on 7th fret, the "Am" shape for Em and the "C" shape for G coincide (probably my "go to" place for soloing around an Em, especially in key of G). I think of the chord names btw, not the shape names .

I don't use 3nps patterns, in fact I don't really think in scale patterns at all. It's all chord shapes and added notes (from the key scale).

Ya, that seems more complicated to me, and difficult to phrase the way I phrase. For me there is essentially one pattern. Just many ways to play it, so I can navigate it any way. That's it. Scales are absolutely vital to how I play. I don't worry about the chords. My brain wants whatever notes it wants. Sure, those are likely often part of the chord, but that information is not relevant to me. I don't need to study. I want what I want. Whether or not what I want is part of a chord or not makes no difference to me. As long as I can play it, I'm good. I want to be able to play as quickly as my mind can imagine as well. A lot of patterns open up different avenues, it's really powerful. There are a number of things I do that I think you'd have a lot of trouble doing with your system. Nothing wrong with that, I mean there are a lof of things Joe Pass did that would have been tough with jimi hendrix's system also.

But like I said, it makes a bit of a difference whether or not I'm carrying the harmonies along with the solos. If I do that, then it's a little different. The scale is built around the chord. I can play the pattern while keeping almost any diatonic chord on the low E fretted.

I think some of that I got from piano. I do that on piano also. On piano, if I know the key, I can solo like that full chords and everything without knowing the chords. It's easier than guitar for playing chords because I can more easily think of them as just combining multiple notes of the key at once. I just press the ones I want. But guitar is awkward, and you need to learn the chord shapes, so it's a little different that way.

[Wyllys]

I find voice leadings/changes/fingerings to give me the sounds I want. Chord names for the resullts come into play WAAAY after getting the sound.

Sometimes the sound comes from a fingering which is already in my muscular memory, sometimes it's completely new. After decades of playing my hands/ears have a good library of fingerings/sounds. New ones are either completely new or using an existing oone in a new tonality...with a new function and a new name for the inversion/substitution.

My objective has always been "hear it, play it", dispensing with the need to think about it. The first decade was the hardest. After that...gravy.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

I find voice leadings/changes/fingerings to give me the sounds I want. Chord names for the resullts come into play WAAAY after getting the sound.

I agree. You kind of name it with hindsight. The old Miles Davis line "I'll play it first and tell you what is is later."
Of course, the very fact you could name the chords later shows that you've learned them before. It's just that that learning retreats into your subconscious. It's only labels you need to retrieve if someone asks.

Originally Posted by Wyllys

My objective has always been "hear it, play it", dispensing with the need to think about it. The first decade was the hardest. After that...gravy.

Absolutely. But - for the OP, or any beginner - we shouldn't forget all the stuff we've forgotten we learned.

What goes in in that first decade (more or less) stays there, forms the foundation you work on top of but which you no longer need to think about.
In the beginning, you've got to play it before you can hear it. Otherwise how can you know what it will sound like? But when you've done that enough, then you can hear it first (in your head). It goes from mind to fingers without any deviation through a conscious decision process.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I don't think that's always the case. You can do chord leading, the same way you can do voice leading.

Well, "chord leading" is just multiple voice-leading, as I see it.
I agree you can do that and ignore the actual chord beneath, if the logic of the leading is strong enough.
A lot depends on how audible the chord underneath is. It's sometimes possible to be so focussed on what one is playing that we don't hear the whole sound the way a listener does.
But then if the leading works, resolves logically, it hardly matters! "Wrong notes" quickly get made right.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

For me the key always comes first. Anything else misses the point of music, for what music means to me.

Yes, key is first. It really makes no sense to ignore that!

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

That's not true. I play that way exclusively.

Really? You never follow changes?

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

You can often even repeat the same 3 notes over and over as the chords change behind you, and that can sound amazing, just like a pedal tone.

Sure. "Often" - not all the time. I'm sure you appreciate in that case how the same 3 notes sounds different as the chords change? That's why it sounds amazing. I agree you don't have to care (certainly not think about) precisely how the notes are working on each chord. The repetition carries it - that's what I mean about something that is "convincing in its own right". I do that kind of thing quite a lot myself.
But sometimes (not always by any means) I like to reflect the changes as I play. For me the chords are a guide, an aid to soloing, not something that gets in the way or makes it more difficult.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

not to me. To me a G note in the key of C always sounds like a G note in the key of C. So does an F A and C. All of their characters come from the key. Then its just a matter of when I want which character. An F chord is F A C character together. If I want the G character on top, I want the G character on top. But the F chord does not change how a G sounds to me. It just is influential on my desire of adding the G sound or not. That was what I meant in the analogy. The chords don't alter the character of the notes, the key does. I just desire which notes I want at any given time, given their character that the key has given them.

Hmm, that's interesting. I find it hard to believe you can't hear the effect that chords have on the scale.
You can choose to ignore it, of course - and probably quite successfully - but those sounds are still all going on there beneath what you're doing.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

that's the opposite of how I look at it. I don't look at the Dm giving color to the 9. I look at it as there is a Dm, and I can add a note of the key, which will sound a certain way, and I know what that sound will be, and I want that.

OK, but "that sound" is different from the effect of an E note on a C chord, or a G chord.
As I say, you may find that difference negligible, easily ignored, but it is there.
When I hear an E on a Dm chord (key of C), I recognise the sound as "major 3rd of the key", but I also recognise that it has a similar character to a G note on the F chord, or a B note on the Am chord. That sound is a "9th", and is shared between all 3 examples. I happen to like that effect, and will use it quite often.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Sure, it makes a Dm9, and I'm definitely very aware of that as I play harmony and solo at the same time, but, it's not something I ever think about.

Well I wouldn't say I think about it, as I'm playing. We're just talking about the sounds here, using words and theoretical terms because we have to. I'm just aware of the "sound of the 9th", and only call it that when having this kind of discussion!

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

All I need to do is play the ideas in my mind. I need to locate them on the fretboard. Organizing according to key makes that easy. Organizing according to chords makes that more difficult for me, and also would make me need to know the chords, which is not actually necessary for playing great solos.

I think you'll find some strong disagreement among a lot of jazz musicians there.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

The chords obviously always influence what I choose to play.

But I thought you were just saying they didn't!
Or do you mean they influence you subconsciously? You ignore them, and trust that your ear will guide you through them?

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I just never care to take theoretcial note of it.

Me neither! Not unless I enter into this kind of debate.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Obviously if there is a modulation or what have you, I will accomodate for that. The pattern changes at that point. It either slides over, or becomes harmonic minor, or what have you. And my ear will know it is coming, and my phrasing will take that into consideration, and I still won't need to know what the chords are. I'll just need to know what happened to the pattern.

This seems to be just a semantic point, about what we mean by "knowing" or "ignoring" the chords, or "following" the chords.
It seems that all you are saying is you don't think about the chords consciously - you trust your ear (and knowledge of the fretboard).

If so, that's really not much different to how I play. I guess I don't trust my ear so much. Sometimes I will go with a key scale, as you do, make some strong phrases and ignore the changes. But other times (maybe most of the time) I'll rely on shapes and fretboard knowledge, and follow links between chord tones.
It's not just about using the chords a crutch (to avoid having to use my ear); it's because I enjoy some of those extension sounds on certain chords - in certain songs - and like to go for those.

Question: could you just jam on a tune you'd never heard before, just by knowing the key? (Without being shown or told the chords?)
I guess you could - and I think I could too, but I think I'd be consciously listening out for the changes, and some of them might distract me; that is, there might well be some interesting moves that are not predictable that I'd want to highlight, or feel I was missing something if I didn't.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Ya, that seems more complicated to me, and difficult to phrase the way I phrase. For me there is essentially one pattern. Just many ways to play it, so I can navigate it any way. That's it. Scales are absolutely vital to how I play. I don't worry about the chords. My brain wants whatever notes it wants. Sure, those are likely often part of the chord, but that information is not relevant to me. I don't need to study. I want what I want.

Yes, but you're talking at the level of your awareness of what you do when you play.
I mean, "I want what I want" too! And I "don't need to study" in order to get it.
But that's because both of us have done all our studying already!

You can't tell a beginner, "you don't need to study: just play what you feel"! That's the most irritating thing to hear. Beginners don't know how to play what they feel. They might feel plenty, but don't yet know the language in which to express it. Then again, you sometimes have to learn some language before any "feel" occurs to you.
For you and me, the language we use to play is second nature now. No thinking required.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But like I said, it makes a bit of a difference whether or not I'm carrying the harmonies along with the solos. If I do that, then it's a little different. The scale is built around the chord. I can play the pattern while keeping almost any diatonic chord on the low E fretted.

I think some of that I got from piano. I do that on piano also. On piano, if I know the key, I can solo like that full chords and everything without knowing the chords. It's easier than guitar for playing chords because I can more easily think of them as just combining multiple notes of the key at once. I just press the ones I want. But guitar is awkward, and you need to learn the chord shapes, so it's a little different that way.

Right!
That takes quite a lot of inventive power to solo with full chords, unrelated to the given chords.
I appreciate it's easy on piano to play multiple notes (from the key scale) at once, but I'd find too much meaning attached to each chord to be able to control where they were all going. And while I can see the advantage in not holding back and just going for it (knowing all the notes are "right" at least in the sense of "diatonic"), I think I'd feel I was producing too much superfluous stuff. That's just me. I'm a "less is more" kind of guy

[Monk of Funk]

I agree with all of that, and the miles davis quote is really cool, and naming the sounds, and knowing them according to their label does take a lot of time, hearing a sound and knowing exactly where it is, or what it is called does take a good deal of experience. But still, for me, it always began with hearing it in my head first, and never with a conscious decision process. The learning of any instrument for me was always just how to get the sounds I wanted to come out the instrument. Since the very beginning.

Learning theory was naming the sounds I already heard in my mind and wanted. Writing or improvising really always worked that way for me, except, for improvising, I sometimes had to make concessions, or I would have to often fix mistakes I made, and the better I got, the more successful I became on my first guess, and the more confidence I had in knowing where certain ideas are, so I could play even more freely. I remember discovering the key, and how huge that was. I remember I was on piano, and in the key of C, and I realized that the sound of "cycling up one chord at a time" that I wanted, was cycling one chord up at a time in the white notes, and that "major" or "minor" was really just a secondary thing. That was a real game changer for me.

There was never a time in music where I ever used theory to logically determine anything. Although I do get writer's block from time to time like everyone else, and I might not always know exactly what I want next, and might poke around a bit, and now theory definitely influences what sorts of things I might try, whereas if I did that before it was more aimless. But by and large I have always written the same way, the idea in my head and then find it on the instrument, no matter what instrument it is.

I still never pay attention to anything on theory of notes when I produce, because timing isn't crucial. On an instrument I need to have an idea and play it when I want it to be played within milliseconds of accuracy. So, I need to know the fretboard.

For programming on my piano roll, timing is only on playback, and has to do with where I put the note, not when I put it, so I can click and drag until it hits the note I want to hear, and I just layer notes one at a time like that for chords. I never pay attention to what chord it is, or what key I'm in, or what degree chord it is, or anything like that. It was like that since the beginning. And now I actually know the theory, so I technically could apply it without too much trouble, I guess, but it's just not necessary, and it's just easier and faster for me to click and drag, than look at the pattern and try to figure out what key I'm in, or what intervals there are between keys. If piano roll was vertical, my piano instincts might kick in, but being horizontal, it doesn't come into play.

Annoyingly though, I do have to learn the names of timing, lie quarter notes, triplets, what swing is like etcetera, which I don't need to know on instruments, because I just play the note when I want, and I don't really need to know what that timing's called.

So, for me it was always like if you had to learn typing on blank keyboards, and timing was pertinent, and there were 12 different general classes of things to say, and the letters moved around a little depending on what class you're in. I'd have to learn where the letters are off by heart and instinctively, and that would take some time. But what I want to say would always have come from my thoughts, not the system of learning the tool that evokes them.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Well, "chord leading" is just multiple voice-leading, as I see it.
I agree you can do that and ignore the actual chord beneath, if the logic of the leading is strong enough.
A lot depends on how audible the chord underneath is. It's sometimes possible to be so focussed on what one is playing that we don't hear the whole sound the way a listener does.
But then if the leading works, resolves logically, it hardly matters! "Wrong notes" quickly get made right.
Yes, key is first. It really makes no sense to ignore that!
Really? You never follow changes?
Sure. "Often" - not all the time. I'm sure you appreciate in that case how the same 3 notes sounds different as the chords change? That's why it sounds amazing. I agree you don't have to care (certainly not think about) precisely how the notes are working on each chord. The repetition carries it - that's what I mean about something that is "convincing in its own right". I do that kind of thing quite a lot myself.
But sometimes (not always by any means) I like to reflect the changes as I play. For me the chords are a guide, an aid to soloing, not something that gets in the way or makes it more difficult.
Hmm, that's interesting. I find it hard to believe you can't hear the effect that chords have on the scale.
You can choose to ignore it, of course - and probably quite successfully - but those sounds are still all going on there beneath what you're doing.
OK, but "that sound" is different from the effect of an E note on a C chord, or a G chord.
As I say, you may find that difference negligible, easily ignored, but it is there.
When I hear an E on a Dm chord (key of C), I recognise the sound as "major 3rd of the key", but I also recognise that it has a similar character to a G note on the F chord, or a B note on the Am chord. That sound is a "9th", and is shared between all 3 examples. I happen to like that effect, and will use it quite often.
Well I wouldn't say I think about it, as I'm playing. We're just talking about the sounds here, using words and theoretical terms because we have to. I'm just aware of the "sound of the 9th", and only call it that when having this kind of discussion!
I think you'll find some strong disagreement among a lot of jazz musicians there.
But I thought you were just saying they didn't!
Or do you mean they influence you subconsciously? You ignore them, and trust that your ear will guide you through them?
Me neither! Not unless I enter into this kind of debate.
This seems to be just a semantic point, about what we mean by "knowing" or "ignoring" the chords, or "following" the chords.
It seems that all you are saying is you don't think about the chords consciously - you trust your ear (and knowledge of the fretboard).

If so, that's really not much different to how I play. I guess I don't trust my ear so much. Sometimes I will go with a key scale, as you do, make some strong phrases and ignore the changes. But other times (maybe most of the time) I'll rely on shapes and fretboard knowledge, and follow links between chord tones.
It's not just about using the chords a crutch (to avoid having to use my ear); it's because I enjoy some of those extension sounds on certain chords - in certain songs - and like to go for those.

Question: could you just jam on a tune you'd never heard before, just by knowing the key? (Without being shown or told the chords?)
I guess you could - and I think I could too, but I think I'd be consciously listening out for the changes, and some of them might distract me; that is, there might well be some interesting moves that are not predictable that I'd want to highlight, or feel I was missing something if I didn't.
Yes, but you're talking at the level of your awareness of what you do when you play.
I mean, "I want what I want" too! And I "don't need to study" in order to get it.
But that's because both of us have done all our studying already!

You can't tell a beginner, "you don't need to study: just play what you feel"! That's the most irritating thing to hear. Beginners don't know how to play what they feel. They might feel plenty, but don't yet know the language in which to express it. Then again, you sometimes have to learn some language before any "feel" occurs to you.
For you and me, the language we use to play is second nature now. No thinking required.
Right!
That takes quite a lot of inventive power to solo with full chords, unrelated to the given chords.
I appreciate it's easy on piano to play multiple notes (from the key scale) at once, but I'd find too much meaning attached to each chord to be able to control where they were all going. And while I can see the advantage in not holding back and just going for it (knowing all the notes are "right" at least in the sense of "diatonic"), I think I'd feel I was producing too much superfluous stuff. That's just me. I'm a "less is more" kind of guy

Ya, I think a lot of jazz misses the point of music. The sound of chords influence me. Learning theory lets me find the sounds I want on the instrument. That's its purpose. The chords don't alter the sound to me. They are just added to it. Your experience might be different.

Thinking about or naming relative to chords impedes my ability to locate the sounds I want, because the chords don't alter the character of a note. So its renaming when new names are not required, which is confusing. I need to rename C, when it is in Cmajor as opposed to Aminor. It's a different sound. I don't need to rename C, if I'm in C major and there is a Aminor chord or Cmajor chord playing. That's too confusing. C always sounds the same in C major. But where the harmony is going, the soundscape obviously affects how I decide to phrase, naturally.

A red shirt always looks like a red shirt in white lighting. I might want it to match with my blue pants or not, depending on how I feel. The blue pants don't alter the look of my red shirt. But in a blue light, my red shirt will look different, so I'll rename it, and then decide what pants to wear with it depending on how they look in that lighting. But the pants don't alter the look of the shirt. The lighting does. That doesn't mean the pants don't influence what shirt I want to wear.

I wouldn't name in a chord centric way, because that naming scheme is not pertinent to me. It doesn't help me find the sounds I want more easily. It is just confusing for me for nothing.

If I played jazz fusion, I might do that, but a lot of that sort of music sounds wrong or off to me because, imo, they too often ignore the essence of the key, by taking a chord centric approach. I'm not saying every musician should do as I do.

What I'm saying is how I do it, and why.

I've noticed you sometimes make general sweeping comments, which I find sometimes don't apply to me, and it's great if that works for you, but that doesn't mean that it is the way music needs to be for everyone. We are different. The way I organize everything works well for me.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

A red shirt always looks like a red shirt in white lighting. I might want it to match with my blue pants or not, depending on how I feel. The blue pants don't alter the look of my red shirt. But in a blue light, my red shirt will look different, so I'll rename it, and then decide what pants to wear with it depending on how they look in that lighting. But the pants don't alter the look of the shirt. The lighting does. That doesn't mean the pants don't influence what shirt I want to wear.

I like the metaphor, but I'd reword it like this:
Say you have a white shirt. That's your note. (One note on its own is meaningless.)
Shine a red light on it, it looks red. That's like the note in relation to the key, which gives it meaning, context.
Shine a blue light on it as well, it looks purple. That's like adding the effect of a chord (other than the tonic chord, which is itself red). The red is still there, but so is the blue.
Other chords also have their own different colours that mix with the red. Some colours blend, others clash (some notes are dissonant against some chords).
What I'm saying is how I do it, and why.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I've noticed you sometimes make general sweeping comments, which I find sometimes don't apply to me, and it's great if that works for you, but that doesn't mean that it is the way music needs to be for everyone. We are different. The way I organize everything works well for me.

Sure. I'm aware I generalize sometimes, about views which are personal to me (and my posts are usually way too long!).
I hope it's generally understood here that all of us are giving our own perspective based on how we each make sense of music; how we got to where we are, and what learning processes helped us.
The advantage of a thread with multiple views is that an OP can take an average. The more people agree on something, the more reliable that info is.
But also, sometimes an individual view - different from the rest- will resonate with a beginner.
(As a teacher, I learn important stuff here too )

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I agree with all of that, and the miles davis quote is really cool, and naming the sounds, and knowing them according to their label does take a lot of time, hearing a sound and knowing exactly where it is, or what it is called does take a good deal of experience. But still, for me, it always began with hearing it in my head first, and never with a conscious decision process. The learning of any instrument for me was always just how to get the sounds I wanted to come out the instrument. Since the very beginning.

Me too. The sounds get in there first from listening to music. That's how we learn the language we want to make, how we learn what sounds "right", and what sounds we like.
Learning an instrument is how we get to "speak" that language ourselves. We know what sounds right and wrong to begin with (that much "theory" is in our head already, like the grammar of our mother tongue), and it's merely a technical challenge to reliably produce the good sounds when we want, and not the bad ones.

The language of theory is just a way to help name the sounds we already know (and some we don't!), so we can talk about them; which obviously helps our learning - unless we work entirely by ear, which almost nobody does. The ear rules, of course, but we all use a certain amount of theory to support it.

The mistake is to give theory too much importance: to believe that it's rules we have to follow, that determine what's "right" and "wrong". That's a kind of occupational hazard here, because our language here is words, so theoretical language is fundamental (and needs to be properly defined all the time). The hazard is that what's "written" (as in the bible ) assumes a spurious authority, just because it's written: there it is in black and white.
So we still get beginners asking what they "can" play in a certain context, as if they need permission, or to understand theoretical laws first. As if you can know that kind of thing before you hear it. When it comes to explaining music, words are always, pathetically, of little use.

[mr. beaumont]

OP, Cliff Notes: learn 'em. Start with the major scale. Know the notes you play, not just "positions."

And please, never call the positions of the major scale "modes."

[Dalegreen]

to the OP, how have scales helped?
I can sit in with most players, never having played with them before and create a melody / feel based on my interpretation. I can go from pop to blues to a jazz feel over the same chord progression and still contemplate what I will be cooking for dinner as I play.
So I would say scales are invaluable (imo)

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

And please, never call the positions of the major scale "modes."

MUSIC RULE #1: If it sounds right, it is right.
MUSIC RULE #2: Never call the positions of the major scale "modes."

That's it for music rules, pretty much.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Me too. The sounds get in there first from listening to music. That's how we learn the language we want to make, how we learn what sounds "right", and what sounds we like.
Learning an instrument is how we get to "speak" that language ourselves. We know what sounds right and wrong to begin with (that much "theory" is in our head already, like the grammar of our mother tongue), and it's merely a technical challenge to reliably produce the good sounds when we want, and not the bad ones.

The language of theory is just a way to help name the sounds we already know (and some we don't!), so we can talk about them; which obviously helps our learning - unless we work entirely by ear, which almost nobody does. The ear rules, of course, but we all use a certain amount of theory to support it.

The mistake is to give theory too much importance: to believe that it's rules we have to follow, that determine what's "right" and "wrong". That's a kind of occupational hazard here, because our language here is words, so theoretical language is fundamental (and needs to be properly defined all the time). The hazard is that what's "written" (as in the bible ) assumes a spurious authority, just because it's written: there it is in black and white.
So we still get beginners asking what they "can" play in a certain context, as if they need permission, or to understand theoretical laws first. As if you can know that kind of thing before you hear it. When it comes to explaining music, words are always, pathetically, of little use.

Oh I must have understood, because from your prior post, it sounded to me like you were saying that you first need to learn and practice theory, and then you can hear the sounds you want in your head. But for me, I always heard it first, and then figured out how to play it, and scales helped me do that.

Originally Posted by JonPR

I agree. You kind of name it with hindsight. The old Miles Davis line "I'll play it first and tell you what is is later."
Of course, the very fact you could name the chords later shows that you've learned them before. It's just that that learning retreats into your subconscious. It's only labels you need to retrieve if someone asks.
Absolutely. But - for the OP, or any beginner - we shouldn't forget all the stuff we've forgotten we learned.

What goes in in that first decade (more or less) stays there, forms the foundation you work on top of but which you no longer need to think about.
In the beginning, you've got to play it before you can hear it. Otherwise how can you know what it will sound like? But when you've done that enough, then you can hear it first (in your head). It goes from mind to fingers without any deviation through a conscious decision process.

[JonHBone]

Originally Posted by Warrenaines

What are some recommended resources for learning scales and applying to improvisation?I haven't been playing much for a while, but want to get back and scales/improv is most interesting to me.

I enjoyed Justin Guitar's Beginner course and the liked the structure and format of his approach. It looks like Justin has some good material on Scales, though perhaps not as structured as some of his courses and seems like you have to pay for a DVD for a lot of the scales/improv related stuff. I'm not opposed to paying (paid for downloads of his strumming techniques), though not a huge fan of the DVD format rather than an electronic download option.

I also have Fretboard Logic I&II, which helps with the CAGED system of learning patterns of scales up and down the neck, starting with pentatonic Should I drill back into that and learn everything cold in Fretboard Logic I&II, or is there another suggested format that incorporates more practical application?

Any recommendations are appreciated.

I prefer "guitar fretboard workbook" and "chord tone soloing" both by barrett tagliarino. You could learn the info of both on youtube but the books are much better. Good luck.