If you are seeing this text, you need to download the latest version of Flash Player here.
Welcome to the Guitar For Beginners & Beyond Forum, the fastest growing Guitar Community on the Internet.
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which limits your access to many of the great features available. By joining our free community you will gain access to over 100 free guitar lessons, be able to post topics, ask questions and communicate with other members (currently we have over 60,000 guitar players from all over the World). By becoming a member, you will also be able to respond to polls, upload and get feedback on your playing and access many other special features... Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so why not join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
a reliable guitarist told me that all u need to know fr playin lead is a good knowledge of major scales...so if i learn da major sclae in all da five positions n then be creative with those notes , will it b enuf ?? it sounds nice to me cuz i can change da key by movin up or down the frets.....am i right???
one more thing...there are millions of amazing guitarists in this world n surely all of em cant have absolute knowledge about all scales cuz from wat i can make out it needs a decent amount of intellect ( which i think i lack ) ..then how do these guys reach at a level where they can improvise n make one hell of a solo...surely there has to b a way out
i hope this is not misinterpreted as me tryin to take an easy way out ( i rlly work hard at guitarin) cuz i'm really curious to find a way through which i can improvise decently wen my buddy gives me any kinda chord progression n not js be stuck in a box...thnx
No scale is naturally occurring, but some have originated as a result of natural phenomena such as the harmonic series.
The best example is the pentatonic scale. It is found in almost every culture and corner of the world dating back to prehistory (not sure about Australian Aboriginal music, though - I'd be interested to know if it occurs there too.)
Occurring independently among diverse ancient cultures suggests that the appeal of its note relationships is due to mankind's musical awareness being conditioned by the naturally occurring harmonic series present in all musical tones.
Of course it wasn't a scale at first, it was just an appealing series of five note relationships that could make pleasing melodies. It wasn't a scale until musicologists on noticing that there were only five note relationships used in their music, put the notes in order of pitch and called it the pentatonic scale.
There was no fundamental change in music before and after Bach's time, just a gradual expansion of the chromatic possibilities offered by the new tuning systems.
My understanding is that there was a radical shift under Bach's innovations/adoption of the well-tempered tuning system. Bach demonstrated that modulation was in fact possible between key centres previously deemed impossible. This of course has had a profound impact on everything since.
The best example is the pentatonic scale. It is found in almost every culture and corner of the world dating back to prehistory (not sure about Australian Aboriginal music, though - I'd be interested to know if it occurs there too.)
Occurring independently among diverse ancient cultures suggests that the appeal of its note relationships is due to mankind's musical awareness being conditioned by the naturally occurring harmonic series present in all musical tones.
Of course it wasn't a scale at first, it was just an appealing series of five note relationships that could make pleasing melodies. It wasn't a scale until musicologists on noticing that there were only five note relationships used in their music, put the notes in order of pitch and called it the pentatonic scale.
Now that is really interesting. I was aware of the use of pentatonic in Chinese and Japanese music, and had always assumed that its origins were to be found in Africa, and made its way to China/Japan via trade routes across central Asia.
Does the pentatonic scale receive much use in Indian music? I understand that their division of the octave is based on 22 increments, and I believe some Chinese music may even have a few more. The pentatonic scale is fairly easy to identify in Chinese music, but I have never noticed it in Indian music.
As an aside, I spent three months in India working on various World Vision projects and the like. Music is everywhere. I found it somewhat difficult to listen to, as it sounded out of tune all the time. Very interesting rhythmically though.
Aboriginal music is somewhat different. It uses less than 12 tones - maybe 7 (certainly open to correction on this), to divide up an octave. To my white ears it sounds out of tune as well - but in a different way to Indian music.
As another aside, I wonder how much concepts of tuning have to do with social conditioning? I would suspect a lot. I readily accept disscordant jazz as being quite normal, but I was exposed to jazz from a very early age. Once at school I was playing some blues, and a friend of mine who had grown up in a very conservative Chinese family, she had only ever listened to Western Art Music, specifically the Classical and Baroque eras according to the dictums of her father, freaked out when I ended on an altered dominant chord.
To me it was quite acceptable, but to Leanne it was verging on blasphemy!
My understanding is that there was a radical shift under Bach's innovations/adoption of the well-tempered tuning system. Bach demonstrated that modulation was in fact possible between key centres previously deemed impossible. This of course has had a profound impact on everything since.
Not that radical, Scotty. Yes, the new tuning system meant that all modulations were now possible but musical style still didn't allow you to go modulating all over the place, just because you could.
Also, it's worth remembering that the previous inability to freely modulate because of the old tuning system applied only to instruments of fixed pitch such as keyboards. Singers and players of string instruments always had the ability to modulate to any key, because they could slightly change the pitch of the note to always be in tune in any context. But their repertoire didn't contain wild modulations either, because the accepted style of the day wouldn't have permitted it.
Bach's 48 preludes and fugues showed that you could now play separate pieces in every key on the same keyboard and you could also become more adventurous in your modulations but it still took time for such modulations to become acceptable.
His son Carl, developed a more ambitious musical form based on a hierarchy of keys with modulations between them, which eventually became sonata form, a feature of which, the development section, makes a point of wandering through remote keys just for the hell of it.
So it was more of a gradual process, and also an inevitable one. JS Bach wasn't the only composer, or even the first one, to expand the tonal possibilities of the tempered keyboard. It's just that, being Bach, he did it better and more memorably than anyone else.
I have only given the latest comments a superficial reading, given lack of sleep over the past few days, but I must ask; is any scale actually 'natural' or merely a human construct? In this instance, a construct of European origin.
The method of dividing up the octave in said fashion is by no means consistent throughout the world, and the resultant theory of our musical heritage (assuming we are of western origin of course) does not deal with music from India, Africa, China or the Australian Aboriginals, etc.
This is a part of our industrial and scientific background as westerners. We try very hard to make everything 'work' mathematically, it is part of our heritage. Which also goes to why some things sound 'out of tune' to our ears, Aboriginal Music and Indian Music that you spoke of particularly. This is because Folk instruments were not to a scientific standard but by an ear. Western Instruments have been subject to things like Bach and his Equal Temperment and Pythagoras and his octavial computations for millenia.
As to a 9th Chord Kirk, If it is a Major 9th Chord, isn't there a relative Minor you can play?
The other thing is, I always thought that the scale you used was based upon the music you were listening to and the sound you wanted to create over it.
Now take for instance a standard 12 bar blues. You really going to want to hit a bluesy sound, but the Pentatonic alone isn't going to cut that, you will want the Pentatonic Blues scale for that, an additional few notes.
If it was the same 12 bars, chord for chord, but played with distortion and a heavy crunch, we would term it metal or rock, then well you would like just stick with the Pentatonic.
The chords have not changed. Yet the scale you play has.
The improv still works through your system of Chord Shapes instead of scales, but that doesn't mean either one doesn't work or is better for everyone.
Remember the original part I questioned was the idea that Scales and Modes are meaningless in 'deeper' music.
Above is a blues improv I played just thinking chords. Not pentatonic, not blues scales, not mixolydian ... none of those. I was seeking out a bluesy melody, coaxing it out of the chords as I went. I haven't checked, but I'm sure I played every one of the 12 notes available at some stage or other. I don't ever want to restrict myself to a scale or mode when in fact all 12 notes are there to be used. This is why a long time ago I stopped bothering with the notion of scales. Melody is what I'm interested in, and I find it outlined in the chords. Once you have an outline, you can then embellish till the cows come home.
Below is another, this time a jazzier tune. Again, all the lines came from the chords. I'm not sure how you'd negotiate such a progression thinking scales. Scotty_b said he'd do a modal approach, but if and when he does (Scotty?), I guarantee it will also be following the chords. So whether you consciously bring modes to mind after studying the chords and play them as modes, or simply let each chord be the mode, chords are boss. But, I'm always open to be proved wrong. I can load the backing tracks of those two tunes if you'd like to have a go in a scalar fashion.
Thing is I come from a Scaler point of view, but I am not constrained by the Scale I 'think' I am in.
I would say of the Jazz piece specifically, that what you employ is just called passing notes.
You don't need to write a mode or a scale to fit exactly what you are playing, that includes every note. You are probably playing in a simple Mode or Scale, but employing passing notes judiciously.
Chords are boss, but whether Scales and Modes are irrelevent in deeper music is highly questionable.
Isn't it true that playing the 3 of a chord in the bass was also considered taboo back in those days?
Kirk - No, first inversion chords were common in Bach's day.
Scotty - I wasn't sure either about the use of pentatonic scales in India but this site lists load of them including the 'universal' one that I was referring to: A C D E G and its modes.
Fong - Indian, Chinese and Middle Eastern musical systems were subject to scientific investigation and experiment too. The (to us) out of tuneness is due to how they chose to divide the octave. For example, the Arab system of equal temperament divides the octave by 24 rather than 12, resulting in quarter tones and exotic intervals such as the 'neutral second' (one and a half semitones).
Below is another, this time a jazzier tune. Again, all the lines came from the chords. I'm not sure how you'd negotiate such a progression thinking scales. Scotty_b said he'd do a modal approach, but if and when he does (Scotty?), I guarantee it will also be following the chords.
Sorry - I haven't forgotten about it - to be honest I had a quick play along with it and I was having 'one of those days' where nothing seemed to work...and then I haven't done any recording since then.
Yes - I do typically reference the chords when I am playing, especially if I am the only soloist in the band. On some occasions in the jazz band I play more from a scalar/modal approach than at other times - to try and create some distinction between myself and the horn players I work with. If one plays a very melodic solo I would tend to try and play something different if I take the next one.
My basic playing approach is more using arpeggios and the chromatic scale these days. I was looking at some old charts I had written out about ten years ago, and notes I had scribbled on them for ideas over the chords. My playing was much more 'fusion' influenced then, with deliberately not resolving , and playing far more chord extensions and chromatic lines through everyone. It was the influence of Mike Stern , Scott Henderson and Carl Orr. I really don't play like that much now - perhaps that is a good thing!
Thing is I come from a Scaler point of view, but I am not constrained by the Scale I 'think' I am in.
I would say of the Jazz piece specifically, that what you employ is just called passing notes.
You don't need to write a mode or a scale to fit exactly what you are playing, that includes every note. You are probably playing in a simple Mode or Scale, but employing passing notes judiciously.
Chords are boss, but whether Scales and Modes are irrelevent in deeper music is highly questionable.
I didn't see this response, Fong. Sorry for the tardiness in getting back to you.
From your previous posts, I was under the impression you knew all about which scales/modes to use, which is why I asked. Sorry about that. You suggest I'm "probably playing in a mode" and "just using passing notes" ... I'll say it once again: I'm doing my best to create melody. After 46 years of playing, I know where to find it: in the chords. So I can in fact tell you exactly what I'm doing -- no probably's about it: I'm outlining the evolving melody using chord tones. Embellishments, like getting from one chord tone to anther via passing tones, is mere detail.
I think if one were to analyze what I played in terms of scales/modes, I'd be using several. To me, though, it would be irrelevant information.
When I said you were playing a 'simple' mode, I did not mean through out the piece. I meant, over each chord, you were playing a simple mode with some passing notes.
Now your piece is very long and quite complex, so I will show a simpler example.
You play just 2 notes.
C D
What scale or mode are you in?
You do not really know, until you have the chords.
If you play C major. Then you are playing the Major Scale, the Ionian Mode.
If you add one more note and play.
C C# D
and play the same chord.
You are still playing the major scale, the Ionian Mode, with a passing note.
You can make it more complex and say the two notes you play over the C Major Chord:
F G
Now if my brain is working right, you are playing in the Lydian Mode. If you play:
F F# G
You are still in Lydian, but you have used a passing note.
Now what you were doing over the Jazz chords is far more complex then that, and would take some serious Theory head to work out, but I get the feeling that after they had spent the time working it out, they would only be talking modes with passing notes.
One of the reasons I have never really been any good at Jazz playing is my inability to think fast enough through the scales/modes.
I would also like to add that the other day, after this thread, I tried playing chord shapes that I knew over a simple Amajor Bmajor chord progression...just back and forth didn't want anything too difficult.
I would say it certainly changed my lead playing a little bit because it opened up a different way of thinking about the fretboard, and how I could move around on it.
I would say both have their place, both work theory wise, both are good for lead playing and you really should learn both.
I always understood that the 'mode' you were in is completely dependant on the Chord you are playing over.
C D F & G are ALL in the C Major Scale/Ionian Mode.
If you look at the mode chart I created earlier in this thread, you will note that ALL of the Modes for C have no sharps or flats and ALL of them include
C D F & G
So on that basis, how can you possibly tell which one you are playing in?
The only way to know in this situation is to know the root note of what you are playing over.
If the Root note is C and you are starting from the F, then you are in Lydian, because effectively you are treating that F as your root, your starting position.
That is my understanding of Modes. Though I make no promises that I am not wrong, as I said before I am self taught and I have taught myself other stuff that proved to be wrong.
I would love for someone to confirm or correct me here as it would help my own understanding.
Fong, if you're in the key of C, and you're playing over the F chord (the IV) you're not playing Lydian, even if you're including the #4 in your lines ... you're still just playing the Ionian mode; equally, if you're playing over the G chord, the V chord, and you're including the F in the line, making it G7, you're not playing the Mixolydian mode, you're still just playing the Ionian mode. The same goes for all the other chords of C -- Dm, Em, Am, Bm7-5. As long as you're in the key of C, you'll just be playing the Ionian Mode.
However, if you're playing a Blues in C, for example, and you play chord tones over an F7 chord with a, 2, 4 and 6 thrown in to the lines, then you're playing the Mixolydian over that F7 chord.
That's my understanding, anyway; someone who really knows, like monk, can hopefully confirm that and explain exactly what playing modally is.
Fong, if you're in the key of C, and you're playing over the F chord (the IV) you're not playing Lydian, even if you're including the #4 in your lines ... you're still just playing the Ionian mode; equally, if you're playing over the G chord, the V chord, and you're including the F in the line, making it G7, you're not playing the Mixolydian mode, you're still just playing the Ionian mode. The same goes for all the other chords of C -- Dm, Em, Am, Bm7-5. As long as you're in the key of C, you'll just be playing the Ionian Mode.
However, if you're playing a Blues in C, for example, and you play chord tones over an F7 chord with a, 2, 4 and 6 thrown in to the lines, then you're playing the Mixolydian over that F7 chord.
That's my understanding, anyway; someone who really knows, like monk, can hopefully confirm that and explain exactly what playing modally is.
Thats not quite what I said Kirk.
I said if you are playing a C Major Chord, always, and you BEGIN on the F note, and treat it as your starting position, then you are playing in the Lydian mode, because you are treating the scale you are playing as if the F is your root, instead of the natural C.
I believe this to be correct only because of the logic of it.
If it did not work like that, then you could not play any other Mode but Ionian over the C major chord, because ALL the modes have ALL the same notes as the Major/Ionian Scale. The Lydian mode of C doesn't have any different notes then the Ionian or the Mixolydian, the only difference is how you play them, and how you play them depends on which note you treat as your start or root.
That was my understanding of it, but obviously now I am a bit worried that perhaps my understanding is wrong, but yeah hopefully someone can come along and put me out of my misery one way or another.
Download the PDF of the 'Guitar Chord Slide Rule', print it out, fold it together and you'll have at your disposal a very neat tool that will not only show you all the positions for the main flavors of chords, but will also teach you a very important lesson about how the guitar works... It consists of a folded sleeve and six double sided inserts, instructions for cutting it out and folding it together are included with the PDF ... it's very simple to do, and if you botch it, you can simply print it out again!
) ..then how do these guys reach at a level where they can improvise n make one hell of a solo...surely there has to b a way out
