I need a 'magic decoder ring' for the fretboard...HELP!

[Mycroft]

Stop trying to learn the entire fretboard. Instead try learning all the positions of one note, all over the fretboard. Say, "C" or "A." Once you have it down. Really down, over a few weeks, start learning a second one.

[Mycroft]

I hate zombie threads...

[hubcapsc]

-Mike

[coder]

Chords / harmony are strictly an enhancement to melody. No melody needs harmony more or less than any other melody, and any melody can be arranged using multivoice polyphony.

Historically, there was the "plain song" first. Many vocal traditions never progressed past that, and remained unison only.

Next, folks started using 5ths (see "Gregorian music")

Using 3rds and 6ths did not become a thing until the 13th century. It started in England, then spread to France, Germany and Italy, and pretty soon we had full fledged polyphony.

I suspect there is a notable exception to the above line progress. I the areas of Northern Greece and Southern Bulgaria, they may have had much earlier and different style poliphony. If you listen to Bulgarian polyphonic vocals you will notice they sound very different. A lot more more use of dissonant intervals like 2nds.

But I digress...

[RichardN]

If you learn to read music you'll learn the fretboard.

A good start to improvising is learning the pentatonic scale. It works particularly well with 12 bar progressions.

Both will provide a good foundation for anything you'll want to do in the future.

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by coder

Chords / harmony are strictly an enhancement to melody. No melody needs harmony more or less than any other melody, and any melody can be arranged using multivoice polyphony.

Historically, there was the "plain song" first. Many vocal traditions never progressed past that, and remained unison only.

Next, folks started using 5ths (see "Gregorian music")

Using 3rds and 6ths did not become a thing until the 13th century. It started in England, then spread to France, Germany and Italy, and pretty soon we had full fledged polyphony.

I suspect there is a notable exception to the above line progress. I the areas of Northern Greece and Southern Bulgaria, they may have had much earlier and different style poliphony. If you listen to Bulgarian polyphonic vocals you will notice they sound very different. A lot more more use of dissonant intervals like 2nds.

But I digress...

Interesting but can't say I agree with everything in your post, since the blues and jazz age there have been an awfull lot of hit songs which would just be nothing without harmony because the melody is just too boring, think what When Your Down and Out sounds like without the chords, it's only that circle of 5ths progression which makes the song memorable and turned it into a hit, think of the street corner New York Doo Wop vocal groups of the 50s, most of the melodies they had hits with were only hits because of the harmony and that's true I think of most modern pop music. Take the guitars away from metal bands and what are you left with?
To not need harmony to sound good melodies must be memmorable and interesting without it.

If your interested in intervals and arranging British folk music listen to Hazel Askew of Lady Maisery talking about their vocal groups use of dissonant intervals to harmonise British traditional songs.
At about 8min 24 in this eppisode of BBC radio programme Sideways.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0012q30

[coder]

The topic of how simple or complex a melody is and consequently how conducive it would be for arrangement is somewhat subjective.
Stuff that is boring and cliche melodically, tends to be that way harmonically as well, so I am not sure what the harmony really contributes there.

My yardstick for calling something "interesting" may be different from yours. I tend to use the criteria of "can I guess what comes next?".
Or "that was intersting the first 100 times" or "surprise me". Along those lines.

But even stuff that is predictable may have some redeeming quality, for example demonstrating exceptional musicianship,
or some interesting texture. Take away musicianship and texture and most popular music would become rather un-interesting.
They have, like a total of 2 ideas per tune and most of those are not very good or original ones. Not much information content.

I am amazed at how little the average listener perceives of music. Lots of things that musicians can hear, the average, non-musician listener simply cannot discern.

What is memorable and interesting, depends on cultural context and on the individual. For example, odd time signatures may sound totally exotic and intriguing to an average westerner, but entirely commonplace to someone from the Balkans, who grew up listening to that stuff.
Complexity or simplicity of melodies is not necessarily a good yardstick either. Bartok has a whole bunch of Pentatonic folk music arranged for solo piano. Simple melodies yet often strong and primal, and we know those clearly originated as plain song. Yet these clearly benefit from a briliant arrangement. I am just not sure an useful distinction between melodies that are "suitable" or "less suitable" for arrangement can be made. Just my opinion.

I am not tryting to convince anybody to see it my way, just explaing how I got to where I am at.

[coder]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Stop trying to learn the entire fretboard. Instead try learning all the positions of one note, all over the fretboard. Say, "C" or "A." Once you have it down. Really down, over a few weeks, start learning a second one.

Not a bad idea. On the basis of "Quatity has a quality of its own". I think any approach, if it is done with enough determination and investing enough time will yield results. Conquering a note at a time is sort of a beachead approach, which yields solid reference points, thus makes it easier to learn other notes.

Having said that, getting various scales ( on multiple octaves) under the fingers tends to be also useful.

An extensiopn of the concept above (learn a single note's location on various places on the neck):
I used to fight this back when I was taking lessons:
was to learn multiple fingerings of the same chord. Of course my reaction was : yuck who would _ever_ need all that?. But later in life, I found them useful.

It went like: Let's learn 15 different fingerings of F7. (Those will work out to inversions in the bottom, middle and high string positions).
Once that is mastered, let's modify all those chord fingerings by just changing 1 note, and learn all the Fm7 fingerings. See there is the beachead approach again, to leverage something already mastered to learn something new.

Ok let's do the same thing for Fmaj7. Then learn all the Minor 7 flat 5-s.
That is actually a pretty good toolkit already to do most comping. (I have a bit of jazz bias, can you tell? :-)

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by coder

The topic of how simple or complex a melody is and consequently how conducive it would be for arrangement is somewhat subjective.
Stuff that is boring and cliche melodically, tends to be that way harmonically as well, so I am not sure what the harmony really contributes there.

I think if you want to understand what the harmony contributes to simple melodies then take the melody of any popular song and arrange it using 4 and 5 note jazz chords . I am sure you would quickly hear that there is plenty of potential for harmonic complexity which the famous big band and quartet leaders/arrangers exploited. Many hit songs of the jazz age had to be simple enough to be sung by untrained singers without a huge range but nevertheless a nice tone. For example Take The A Train, take away the harmony and the melody itself has virtually no interest certainly not enough for anyone to enjoy listening to it, even someone who was culturally habituated to hearing a lot of jazz.The harmony does indeed really make it interesting, you may not like it but that's a matter of taste.
Whereas contrasting with traditional dance music jigs reels hornpipes etc, though guitarists do impose a chord progression, players of melody instruments have traditionally not done so and yet these tunes are still popular enough to be played after 100s of years in some cases.

Originally Posted by coder

My yardstick for calling something "interesting" may be different from yours. I tend to use the criteria of "can I guess what comes next?".
Or "that was intersting the first 100 times" or "surprise me". Along those lines.

But even stuff that is predictable may have some redeeming quality, for example demonstrating exceptional musicianship,
or some interesting texture. Take away musicianship and texture and most popular music would become rather un-interesting.
They have, like a total of 2 ideas per tune and most of those are not very good or original ones. Not much information content.

.

I like all forms of dance music and predictability is a virtue in such music as without predictability no one one could dance to it, but then I quite see that not everyone appreciates such a quality.

[coder]

I am not much into dancing, but I imagine the main requirement is a steady beat, and some specific rythmic pattern associated with the type of dance it is for, no? Like a samba, or rumba, or waltz, or gavotte or sarabande etc .

I do not imagine it has much to do with melody or harmony, does it?

I love Bossa for example, and it can be harmonically and melodically quite delightfully complex. Chromatic melodies, lots of altered dominants, strung together in interesting ways, modulations galore...

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by coder

I am not much into dancing, but I imagine the main requirement is a steady beat, and some specific rythmic pattern associated with the type of dance it is for, no? Like a samba, or rumba, or waltz, or gavotte or sarabande etc .

I do not imagine it has much to do with melody or harmony, does it?

I love Bossa for example, and it can be harmonically and melodically quite delightfully complex. Chromatic melodies, lots of altered dominants, strung together in interesting ways, modulations galore...

Oh yes rythmn melody and harmony ( if it's used) are interlinked. In music which arises from a chord progression then the chords allways change on a strong beat mostly the first beat of the bar ( or at least a regular beat if syncopated), sometimes on the 3rd beat too in 4/4 time so changes to the harmony are a major part of keeping the groove, that's why it's called rythmn guitar.
Traditional dance music like jigs hornpipes etc often have melodies which are composed of barely disguised chord arpegios and , frequent changes to those arpegios combined with a few other elements like scale passages and melody notes from outside the chord are what taken together produces the melody and again changes to the underlying harmony occurs on strong beats, that's why it's so easy to accompany this kind of music on guitar and even predict where the melody is going with a reasonable chance of success.
The kind of folk songs which I found very hard to put chords to are songs which might have a strong rythmn but changes to the harmonic structure of the melody do not occur on strong beats , it changes in odd places so if I try to change chords where the melody would require it then it feels disconcerting as the rythmn and melody are not closely linked. Getting around this issue can take a bit of working out.
I love listening to Brazzilian Bossa Nova in the car but I never tried playing that music on guitar, I think it would be a lot of fun though.
Did you listen to the bbc Sideways program, some of the recent scientific research on harmony in human conversation is quite an eye opener.

[coder]

Do you have some breadcrumbs to the BBC Sideways program? Where did you find it? Sounds interesting.

For Basilian guitar stuff, I highly recommend Paolo Bellinati and Yamandu Costa. Esp. Paolo on the Afro-Sambas CD, he does accompaniment on a tune "Tristeza E Solidao", the guitar track could stand on its own as a solo piece.
The sung melody is not complex but the guitar arrangement is genius. Oh Let's not forget Achilles Rocha. Thanks to you , I was poking around and found him by accident.

I am thinking, for arranging these types of tunes you are talking about, maybe a different approach would be easier. instead of trying to fit chords immediately, how about with coming up with another melody first, using counterpoint?.
It may be easier to come up with good chords if you have 2 voices already. I am originally a bass player, so I had to do something like this a lot, coming up with a good bass line.

All the best

[hatamoto]

Originally Posted by EllaMom

Hi, and HELP! I'm pretty new to guitar. I bought my first guitar about 2 years ago and tried to teach myself. Gave that up after 6 months and got myself a teacher. That lasted about 6 months. His method was to teach chords and sing. I was clear: no singing! I want to learn fingerstyle. So I was on my own again for another 6 months, then found another teacher. One who is helping me learn techniques along with fingerstyle. No singing!

I've already learned hammer-ons, pull-offs, slides, vibrato, string bending, etc. (not saying I'm good at 'em yet, but I'm trying!) I know the basic chords, and I love playing arpeggios. So, for example, just 'picking apart' a simple chord progression, chord by chord, note by note, is beautiful to my newbie ears.

BUT... I want to improvise, and my teacher encourages it. However I have not been able to figure out how to know what notes to play that go well with what I'm already playing. It seems that I just "hunt and pick" until I find a note that kinda sounds ok. But there must be a better way!

All of you who are skilled players know automatically where to go on the fretboard to improvise. What's the secret? I thought it would help to learn the notes on the fretboard (still working on that), or perhaps scales. But that's not it. Just because I know where to find a C on the fretboard doesn't mean that I know it will sound nice with what I'm playing.

Any tips? Is it just one of those things that comes with time? Or is there truly a 'magic decoder ring' that I need to get to help it all make sense.

Oh, and I play lefty, so all of the books and diagrams out there that show things on the fretboard are not entirely helpful for me, because they are backwards to my world (just to make it even MORE challenging!).

Thanks for any input/advice you can share.

EM

I haven't read what others have posted so I might be repeating. There is no "magic decoder" and there are no shortcuts. Every great player went through what you are going through now. Since you enjoy playing arpeggios, I would start from there.

I wouldn't worry about being a lefty too. I think if you ask your teacher to teach you how intervals and triads work, it can save you a lot of headaches.

And yes, I think scales are too "general" to use as an improv tool for a beginner since they don't know how to target chord tones.

First, is phrasing. Sing any song in your head, copy how singers phrase their words. They sing in a particular rhythm. Copy that. Pick a slow song so you avoid playing a flurry of notes. It's not about that.

Then focus on your arpeggios...

Pick only one position of the fretboard. Limit yourself between frets 1-5 and only using three string groups at a time. Maybe start with the three treble strings. Target root notes, and arpeggios.

For example, when a chord is going back to the resolution chord, Cmaj, if you deliberately target any of the notes that make up Cmaj, which are C E or G, your playing will sound powerful. Follow the chord progression this way for now. If you hit any of the notes of the arpeggio that matches with the chord in time, you will sound good. Try to play the arpeggio by copying how the singer phrases their words, so it shouldn't be ascending or descending.

Once you get used to that, then pick a scale and use that as a guide for your improvisation. Maybe use the scale to add passing notes to give a sense of movement. Stick to the limitation of staying within fret zones and only using three string groups at a time. For me, scales kind of act like a "skeleton". It serves as a guide, like a map... The notes of the chord provide the colors to form the detailed sculpture. Combining the two is a good framework for endless creativity. Personally, I would use the major or minor pentatonic scale.

Once you find a certain melody you like, move over to the next fret position (5-7) and use the same melody. The patterns will be different because that's how the guitar is constructed, but that's the beauty of it. Once you get used to that, move to the next position and do the same thing.

So it's a combination of targeting the proper chord tones and phrasing that makes music sound coherent. It's great that you love arpeggios, they sound very colorful.

My 2 cents. I'm not a teacher nor a great player, but I know my way around. Just sharing what makes sense to me.

This is just one out of a million ways to go about this.

[archtopkook]

Learning can be frustrating by yourself. If you go to guitar circle, open mic, or church, just for the music, or other reasons too, you get to play with people that aren't like you, from different backgrounds perhaps, age differences. That's all good stuff. Take lessons, practice at home, and the listen and watch how other people do it, talk to them, ask questions, it's fun, life affirming, all musicians are students of their instrument. No one is as good as they want to be, it's a process, a state of being.
Pablo Casals, brilliant cellist, continued to practice intensely with his cello in his nineties, when asked why, he replied, "I think I’m making progress."

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by coder

Do you have some breadcrumbs to the BBC Sideways program? Where did you find it? Sounds interesting.

For Basilian guitar stuff, I highly recommend Paolo Bellinati and Yamandu Costa. Esp. Paolo on the Afro-Sambas CD, he does accompaniment on a tune "Tristeza E Solidao", the guitar track could stand on its own as a solo piece.
The sung melody is not complex but the guitar arrangement is genius. Oh Let's not forget Achilles Rocha. Thanks to you , I was poking around and found him by accident.

I am thinking, for arranging these types of tunes you are talking about, maybe a different approach would be easier. instead of trying to fit chords immediately, how about with coming up with another melody first, using counterpoint?.
It may be easier to come up with good chords if you have 2 voices already. I am originally a bass player, so I had to do something like this a lot, coming up with a good bass line.

All the best

Hi coder, thanks for the recomendations for Brazilian guitar music which I will definitely check out. I posted a link to the bbc Sideways programme on harmony about two of my posts above .
The issue of folk songs where the melody can't be matched closely to chords which change on strong beats I get around in different ways depending on what works, sometimes I just play chords where they work then switch to playing the melody parrallel with an interval bellow which I think is what you do with your bass guitar ( but maybe your bass line is more sophisticated changing dirrection independant of the melody ? That would be a bit too complicated for me to sing to but yes for playing an instrumental between verses I try to do that to a limited extent )some songs the timing stays regular but the melody has maybe one or two notes on strong beats which don't fit regular chord changes unless the chord is changed for just one beat which is a very offputting thing to do when trying to sing so sometimes I just ignore a bit of dissonance with the chords for just one or two notes for the sake of keeping chord changes at rythmical intervals.
People who play songs which were originally written over a chord progression never have these issues to solve but I think that's what makes music interesting.