#46
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you wanted to design a guitar for the purpose of playing notes between the frets, then just don't put frets, and problem solved. That guitar can play any music of any style, any scales, any notes, and all pitches in between them. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The easy one though is I IV V, Take that in C. So C major is one scale. C-Eb-F-F#-G-Bb. That's the other. This is the most clear cut easy to find thing. I think that's why so many songs just use that progression. I know there's a jack johnson one like that also. There's another song I play in a minor key that's just vi-ii, and that one works well with this sort of half steppish kind of arabic style scale, which is kind of a different thing. But still, there are definitely times where other scales seem to be useful. I mean, sometimes maybe only one note might be different. But, I think still playing it in a scale, makes a difference, even if all the other notes are already part of the original scale. Whether you do this subconsciously or not. And this might make a more outside sound, even though it is not that outside, because you're changing sort of the reference points. Kind of like, let's say I play 2 different modes, with no drones, or chords in the background. The difference is only how I play those. So thinking of a similar set of notes, as having a different reference, can maybe lead to a more outside sound than it technically is. Just like if you copy pasted the Mixolydian style thing you played, over the whole aeolian chord progression. I don't think that would sound too outside, but if you did that with a scale that had just one note outside of it, it might. EDIT: I'm looking at some harmonic minor videos, and I think that might that arabic style sound thing I referred to. really looks like it to me. Last edited by Monk of Funk; 11-11-2013 at 06:21 PM. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
what about the song "I'm in the mode for love"
sorry.. could not help myself ..
__________________
Jasper "Thomas of NH" Guitar Playing, learning .. the acoustic guitar. Eastman E8D "the Fox" Taylor 414ce "Baby T" |
#48
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Quote:
We obviously do because we've heard them do it before. But the first time it was applied to guitar, it must have come from something else - namely vocal styles. This is quite evident from unaccompanied blues singers, and from the kinds of conversations early blues players had with their guitars. Blues singing is where blues playing comes from. Not vice versa. African-Americans were singing when they were slaves, with no instruments (other than maybe makeshift drums, fiddles or banjos). Their African heritage was handed down, adapted to circumstances. IOW, there was quite clearly something about how African-Americans made music that was very different from how Europeans (and European-Americans) made music, and those differences can be traced back to Africa. And they're enshrined in what came to be called the blues. The rhythmic aspects of African heritage are evident to some degree in jazz, although more in Caribbean and South American music; but the melodic aspects are preserved mostly in blues, as well as the various vocalised instrumental techniques of jazz improvisers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IOW, "blues piano" has become a genre of its own. The limitations of particular instruments obviously dictate the form of music to some degree. Quote:
Quote:
The idea (usually) is that vocal or melody tends towards the blues scale, but will commonly resolve to chord tones - all of which come from the C major scale. Those tensions - between minor pent scale (plus b5) and major key chord tones - are what we recognise as "blues". But it's still a slightly crude view, because the pitches slide around, in a very distinctive way, on their way from chromatic to diatonic and vice versa (whether not we believe there are ideal "septimal" pitches in between). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The question is just how we perceive which is which, which can be quite a subtle thing, depending on how much we're given, and what we're expecting. Eg, with no background, the scale becomes the source of what we perceived as "inside". As soon as we hear more than one note, the ear is trying to make sense of how the different notes relate, because we want to find meaning. Certain combinations of notes are familiar (such as major or minor pent, major scale, or its modes), so if the series of notes gravitates towards one of those, that becomes the "inside". Of course, that doesn't mean "good" necessarily, because we always want music to have something fresh or surprising - as long as it isn't totally alien (because then it wouldn't sound like music at all). Yes, the 5th mode of harmonic minor (phrygian dominant) is a popular way of sounding "arabic" or "flamenco". Other modes of it might be slightly more "out there".
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. Last edited by JonPR; 11-12-2013 at 05:47 AM. |
#49
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
It is enough that the strings may be bent, and someone did that, and thought it sounded cool, and so did everyone else. That's all you need. [quote]Yes. Or play slide. Much less work. Except it's harder to play chords, without the frets keeping you in line. Quote:
If I were to use only theory to piece these together, then I would hasve to assume that there might be some progressions that allow this sort of thing for some period of time, but then only the key works well after. No? I could see these working if all of their notes were part of every chord that is played, as though the progression were diatonic to those scales, but it is not that way. These scales are using notes outside of the key, that are not present in the chords they are floating over. There must be some other explanation. That is my question. |
#50
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Still, it's a fair point: logically, blue notes could have been invented from nowhere by someone messing around on guitar. But that's ignoring the history, or rather logic derived from examining the history. In any case, you still need to explain why that someone though blue notes sounded good, if he'd never heard anything like that, because technically they're "out of tune" with everything else. IOW, they would sound bad, unless there was an existing history (in that person's awareness) of them sounding good. Quote:
Because all the chord tones are in the scale. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IOW, if you think rules are being broken - in music that sounds OK- you're applying the wrong rules. (It's only when music sounds bad that you can talk about rules being broken.) In this case, in thinking purely diatonically, you're applying a crude rule rather too rigidly. Even in classical music, all kinds of chromaticism were used, but according to well-established rules. In blues, it's different (the harmony is not "functional"), but the idea of "established practice" still applies. The melody notes that are "outside the key" are inside the traditional melodic practices (traditional African-American vocal habits). With no chords at all, the melodies will sound absolutely right. But the melodies bend notes in particular ways that don't quite fit equal tempered western scales. And the best way to accommodate both together - experience has shown - is to set the melodies (approximately minor pent) against a major key I-IV-V. That's because the blue 3rd is often sharp of minor, and - as we know - a melodic major 3rd above a minor 3rd in the harmony sounds nasty, while vice versa is OK (as in the 7#9 chord). There's an important (but subtle) distinction regarding "inside" and "outside" here. In jazz - as in classical music - chromatic notes serve functional purposes. Eg, if we introduce an A7 chord in key of C major, it's probably in order to lead to Dm (as a "secondary dominant", V/ii); the C# works as a leading tone to D; or (in jazz anyway) it might also work leading down to C on a Dm7. Those kind of chromatics are always fixed pitches in equal temperament. But in blues, chromatics sometimes just sit there as unresolved clashes (eg that #9 on a blues tonic 7#9 "Hendrix" chord); or they might bend towards the next half-step, and not quite get there. IOW, those juicy unresolved tensions are part of the blues language. They'd sound quite wrong in a classical context (and in many pop or jazz contexts) but in blues they are "correct". So, if we want a theory to explain it, we shouldn't expect theory borrowed from CPP practices (functional harmony) to do the job. We need a special "blues theory", based on proper examination of blues itself; and that in turn needs a full historical (and geographical) overview of blues, defining exacly what it is and where it comes from. We might want to invoke science - measuring frequencies - which is where the septimal theory of blue notes comes from - but we don't have to. (I don't totally subscribe to that, but I may be coming round to it.) But really, all that any "music theory" needs to do is describe the common practices in as accurate and detailed a way as possible (or as necessary). It doesn't have to explain why something works, only observe that there seems to be general agreement that it does work; and then invent some handy terminology for talking about it. (Classical music theory doesn't explain why classical music works.)
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It is quite complex from a theoretical perspective, so understanding basic chord changes (without extensions) and applying scale forms ( modes, pentatonic, etc) relative to those chords is the best approach. I will post a chart with a new thread, should give a bit of understanding as to one of many, many options |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
You're thinking about "key" too much. Each chord is a harmonic environment. Even in diatonic progressions the strong notes shift chord to chord.
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
agree totally, just coming from the approach, learn all the "rules" , then break them all
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I mean, ok, each chord will have its own sound that is strong. If I look at my fretboard though, as the key, as that pattern, then all i would have to do, is listen, and then I would just choose those chord tones often enough, based purely on the sound. I don't have to look at the fretboard any different. Or, Is there some advantage to looking at the chords as separate, for a diatonic progression? I don't mean in terms of sound, I mean in terms of patterns on the fretboard. I looked into treating chords as separate, and found that it was only really useful for non diatonic progressions, but I'm starting to think that might not be the case, or it isn't always the case. So, this would be cool to learn also, but I haven't come across specific evidence of these sorts of things really. I would love to see somebody play some thing, that was not something that I would think of playing, and they looked at the fretboard in some way I do not, to help them do that. Whether it is some scale they use on a chord basis, or some scale they use on a string of chords. I'd be satisfied with the explanation that the 12 bar blues is like that, because it so happens that every one of those chords work well with those 2 scales that they use, looked at from a non diatonic perspective, and when you string them together, you find that the whole progression works with both. that would be good information. That would mean that every time, I come a cross a IV chord, I could mess around with those 2 scales. I don't much like music that is non diatonic though. I like for music to go non diatonic for a little bit, but a lot like how jazz is. If looking at the progression as chords, and not the key, is only useful for non diatonic music, then I don't care much for it. Again, I mean in terms of pattern on the fretboard. Aeolian, mode over the 6th chord in the major key, is the same as just playing that major key. So there is nothing new fretboard wise. Sound wise, playing over the vi and over the V is very different. But are there other options that are common scales to use over the vi, that are not the aeolian mode, and are not relatives to it? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
You seem kinda hung up on "play this over this." Can you really hear what notes truly define any chord? Am to D7 to Gmajor...what notes really define that progression?
|
#56
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Quote:
IOW, your basis is - as you say - the chord ones within the diatonic framework. Eg, if you're in C major and you have a Dm7 chord, then the foundation is the chord tones (D F A C) with the other 3 diatonic notes (E G B) as passing notes. All 7 notes can be used, but there's those clear two levels: chord tones "in", passing notes "out" (relatively). Jeff may be thinking about "voice-leading" between chords: ie, not just thinking of chord tones at random, but of how they move to the next chord. Eg, the C on Dm7 resolves to the B on G7 (and then - classically - back up to C on the C chord, although in jazz it might well stay on B for Cmaj7); The F on Dm7 holds across to F on G7 and then descends to E on the C. These are what are called "guide tone" lines in jazz. They're what chain the chords together as a functional unit, a working "machine" if you like. Beyond the chord tones are the 5 chromatics (as you also know), even more "out", but which can also be used as passing notes: usually as "chromatic approaches" - half-step below or above chord tones. But also you can insert chromatics between chords to smooth the changes. Eg, going from A on Dm7 to B on G7, you could go via A#. It's really the same as a chromatic approach (to the G7 chord tone) but starting from a previous chord tone. What I would say is that you seem to want to think too much in terms of fretboard patterns. Obviously we use (and see) fretboard patterns all the time, as chord shapes, intervals or scale patterns, but we need to think in notes and chord tones (including extensions/alterations). Quote:
It's crucial to maintain the functional links between chords; which doesn't mean ignoring all the chromatic options, far from it! What you call "non-diatonic progressions" - and others might call "modal harmony" or "non-functional sequences" - again you're right, that's where focussing on individual chord-scales is appropriate. But even there, it's important to think about links across the chords, to preserve a melodic flow. Ie, even in pure "modal jazz" there are links between the chords - there is a logic to the chord changes, even if's not a conventional functional one. Quote:
It's a big mistake - IMHO (and this rant is not directed at you personally!) - to think about "applying scales"; to look at a chord sequence and think "what scales could I apply here". It's ignoring what you're given. The chord sequence gives you all the inside notes you need - you only then need to introduce chromatics as passing/approach notes, if you want to add that level of "spice". There's no need to apply any chord-scale theory whatsoever. The best chord-scale theory is still only a system for listing the "inside" notes on any chord (extensions/alterations as well as chord tones). Normally the tune gives you all that information. For any single chord in a progression, you can usually get all the other chord-scale notes from (a) the melody, (b) the other chords, (c) hints in the chord symbol. It's static harmony (modal, non-functional) where chord-scale theory can be useful, simply because the single chord (and melody) may not provide all that information - and the other chords in the sequence may not be relevant (they'll have their own chord-scales). IOW, there's nothing wrong with "chord-scale theory" - except it isn't a "theory"! It's not a method; it's not a principle of, or basis for, improvisation. It's simply a way of listing suitable extensions/alterations on any given chord. Principles of improvisation are something quite different, beyond that. Chord-scale concepts might be a way of looking at a bunch of chords, suggesting usable notes. It might just (very occasionally) suggest options which are not ****ed obvious from the given material (chord symbols and melody). But it's not something you "apply" as a method of choosing what you play. Not until you've decided - for whatever reason - to reject what you're given, anyway. A French dictionary is not a method for speaking French. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So you don't "play aeolian". You play the scale of the key. The vi chord makes it sound "aeolian" (by providing the root quality). And even then, the aeolian sound is fleeting, unless the chord lasts for several bars. The true (relevant) sound is "vi chord in major key (Ionian mode)", Quote:
Quote:
I mean, obviously you can "apply" other scales. But they will all have at least one "wrong note". By "wrong note", I mean a non-functioning chromaticism. You can still use any of the 5 chromatic notes in addition to that "aeolian mode" (major scale on vi) - but they should be used as passing notes, or at least with some understanding of the effect each of them has on that chord, or in leading to a subsequent chord. Eg, a good example of an applied chromaticism which is not a passing note is in Jimi Hendrix's Little Wing. The key is G major, and he plays a Bm chord with an add 9th (C#). The diatonic 9th would be C, a b9. He's not using the C# as a chromatic approach to D (he's pulling off to B). And what he is certainly not doing is "applying B aeolian mode", or "B dorian mode" (instead of diatonic B phrygian). He's adding the C# purely because he likes the sound of a major 9th on top of a minor chord. IOW, he's using his ear and experience (and taste) to decide that an add9 sounds cool even when it's out of key. Of course he also uses a couple of chromatic chords, also for pragmatic reasons. Right after the Bm(add9) is Bbm, a chromatic passing chord down to Am (the "theory" there is chromatic voice-leading). And there's an F too, the classic rock bVII chord (the "theory" there is modal interchange, or borrowing from the parallel minor). So there are various theories one can invoke to support various practices in rock music - if you think it needs theoretical support!. "Applying scales" (chord-scale theory) is not one of them, not in my experience. That's not to say that we can't use modal terms as a shorthand to help describe the effect of certain practices in rock. Eg, we can say Carlos Santana "uses A dorian mode" on "Oye Como Va". But from another perspective, all he is really doing is using the chord tones from the Am7 and D7 chords that comprise the sequence - with a consciousness that A is keynote (not G). He may have heard of the term "A dorian mode", or he may not; it's not a necessary concept.
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I got this suggestion from someone (Lee Ritenour, I think, in a GP article) years ago. Something like this: Learn one lick a day. Short, simple. Play it in all keys Find other ways to finger it If it's major, change it to be minor, vice versa Try it against different chords Play it backwards Invert it, when it goes up, go down, when it goes down, go up That should produce maybe anywhere from a few to hundreds of variations of the lick. Do that every day for a year. You'll have so many thousands of licks that you won't even know when you use one. They'll be like the words you use to talk, you won't remember who you first heard use the word, you'll just use them to communicate your own ideas.
__________________
Music: Spotify, Bandcamp Videos: You Tube Channel Books: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), Christmas Carols for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), A DADGAD Christmas, Alternate Tunings book Online Course: Alternate Tunings for Fingerstyle Guitar |
#59
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Some cool sounding things are so fast and that makes it really tough to ear out. And a lot of sort of tutorials and things are too basic. So, it would take a long time just to find the licks, and then a long time to ear it out. If I had a good resource though of cool licks played fast, and then played slow, I would definitely do that. Sometimes I wish I could just listen to somebody awesome play, and then go "wow, stop. ok, what did you just do there?" I have the feeling though, that there are things people are doing in solos, that use concepts I don't use. I am happy with learning those. I don't mind finding my own licks with those concepts. If there are no such concepts though, then in a way that's awesome, because I have nothing left to learn theory wise, and in a way that sucks, because I have nothing left to learn theory wise. But, it seems to me, like there must be more concepts that I don't use. there are a bunch of scales I never use. They must exist for some reason. Maybe they are useless for diatonic music though. That would suck. Maybe all I can do now is learn licks. If that's the case, then there is a lot less theory than people think, imo. |