[Kirk Lorange]

Please note that the movie is a 4 Mb download ... it may take a while.

I thought I'd do a quick demo of the power of knowing the chords to a piece of music ... knowing then inside and out, all over the fretboard. This is the progression I used in the last fingerstyle lesson I did, in fact it's the very same mp3 of the arpeggiated chord progression.

As you must know by now, when I improvise melody over a piece of music, I don't think scales. I would have very little success creating a solo over anything thinking scales. That's not to say that others wouldn't ... but I wouldn't know where to begin thinking along those lines, especially in a piece like this that introduces a bunch of 'outside chords' into the picture -- chords not int he key of G. Once that happens, you would need to start thinking of different scales for different parts and somehow merging them into melody. Way too hard for my poor old brain. The fact is, though, the chords of the piece have already, by their very nature, selected the strongest melody notes: their chord tones ... the notes that make them up. It doesn't matter how many outside chords come into play if your tracking the music chord by chord, and you can see its tones scattered the length of the fretboard, instead of scale patterns. One way or the other, you need to think of something, and since you need to know the chords anyway, why clutter your brain with a whole other set of patterns? The other fact is that you would wind up weeding out of the 7 scale notes (of whatever scale is in play), the strong notes with which you would want to start and finish your phrases ... chord tones!

This demo is not meant to be an award winning melodic extravaganza! I purposely played only chord tones so you can hear that they work, they're right, they don't clash with anything, they fit ... I did this so you can see that it is possible to, first of all, see them there for each chord, and that once you can see them there, they can strung into melody that isn't just plucking notes from a chord. In other words, playing just chord tones needn't be boring. Most of the chords used in this have 4 or more chord tones to work with.

I used my index finger to make it a little clearer for you, and also to show that muscle memorized runs and riffs aren't coming into this particular run through. I'm hunting the chord tones down ... seeing them and stringing them together as I go, thinking a little ahead so I know which chord is coming up, hearing the evolving melody in my head, steering it to a pleasant resolve ... listening, steering, listening.

You can take my word for it that all notes played are chord tones ... or you can pick it all apart and see for yourself. If the chord is a plain old major, I use the 1-3-5 of that chord; if it's 7th, the 1-3-5-b7; 9th? 1-3-5-b7-9; minor? 1-b3-5; minor 6? 1-b3-5-6 ... etc. The melodies are simply the result of stringing those chord tones together ... timing, dynamics, taste also come into it, of course, but the choice of notes is dictated by the 'chord of the moment' ... not the 'blues scale'.

Seeing them there is the trick, and I won't tell you how I do that. My book/DVD PlaneTalk explains and demonstrates that trick ... it's very simple, but takes a lot of work putting it into practice. Once you digest it, though, you can see the entire fretboard as a chord, and no chord is trickier than any other .... they're all the same, all friendly, all familiar.

If I were playing a proper solo to this, I wouldn't restrict myself to just chord tones; you'd hear a few - and I do mean a few - non chord tones in amongst it all, adding detail to the picture. They are a piece of cake to see and use once you can see the chord tones ... they are, of course, other scale notes and chromatic scale notes (thinking 'modes' become redundant ... I'm playing all kinds of modes in this without once thinking about them) ... in other words ALL 12 notes become easy to use once you can see the CTs. They can link two CTs together, or add tension if lingered upon, generally embellish and add color to the CT melody that lies at the core of it all.

The progression is:

| G - - - | - - - - |G7 - - - | - - - - | C - - - | - - - - | Cm - - - | Cm6 - - - |
| G - - - | E7 - - - | A7 - - - | D7 - - - | G - - - | Edim - Am7-5 - | G - - - |

I hope this helps you understand the power of knowing your chords! If you know your chords well enough, you know all scales and modes also.

[Kirk Lorange]

Originally Posted by djangowish

Can you do the same for the song "all of me" For a dummy it is the leap needed from twelve bar to harmony.


br
Phil

Yes, of course ... it works especially well over tunes that use a lot of outside chords. With the blues, you can always resort to the 'blues scale' but once you move away from the 12 bar kind of thing, that scale will not be very useful. I always found scales to be very limiting, which is why I stopped using them for melodic improvisation ... consciously, anyway.

If you look at the other chord tone lesson, you'll see how harmony emerges naturally from the chord progression if you know how to zero in on the chord tones. This applies to any chord progression, any style of music, no matter how convoluted it may be.

[Kirk Lorange]

Originally Posted by BuddyManx

Maybe this approach depends a little on whether you are trying to fit a solo to a chord progression or a chord progression to a melody. I would guess many melodies of songs are thought of before the supporting chord progression.

I'm only talking about playing along to an existing chord progression, Buddymanx ... soloing, improvising, playing along.

The opposite process which you mention is 'harmonising' a melody line ... finding chords that will back the existing melody line. When you do that, you use those notes of the existing melody and add to them until you have the chord progression that you want to hear. There are always several possibilities and the composer settles on one of them ... so in that case, the melody started out as being a series of notes, most of which will become chord tones of the progression that is the result of harmonising that line. That is the nature of music ... melody loves chord tones, no matter which way you approach it. I don't know of any melody lines that aren't predominantly chord tones, nor does anyone else ... it's no longer music.

[djangowish]

Hi Kirk

Honoured for a personal reply,

"All of Me" but not just all of me its night and day and all those classics.
I havent the Lionel Grigson "Jazz Chord Book" 350 entrys standards and originals.

I figure I must understand this book to go further and have taken "all of me" from it

It says in a quarter of a page:
ABAC
Bflat % D7 Am&D7 A0 D7 Gm % etc as with all the others. When I try to play it just sounds all wrong.

I was hoping if there could be a series of video or other lessons/cd on interpertating this language. Maybe there are others with the same ?
I'd sign up for that with your guidance.

All of me seems a well known standard and a starting place.
I have bought your book ( Plane) though waiting arrival though not expecting it to cover this angle

br

Phil

Originally Posted by Kirk Lorange

I'm only talking about playing along to an existing chord progression, Buddymanx ... soloing, improvising, playing along.

The opposite process which you mention is 'harmonising' a melody line ... finding chords that will back the existing melody line. When you do that, you use those notes of the existing melody and add to them until you have the chord progression that you want to hear. There are always several possibilities and the composer settles on one of them ... so in that case, the melody started out as being a series of notes, most of which will become chord tones of the progression that is the result of harmonising that line. That is the nature of music ... melody loves chord tones, no matter which way you approach it. I don't know of any melody lines that aren't predominantly chord tones, nor does anyone else ... it's no longer music.

Thanks for that Kirk- It is the "several possibilities" that have got me thinking- as I've been looking at a couple of Real Book versions of "After You've Gone" which have a number of differences in the chord progression-which made me wonder about just how much latitude you have in the choice of more outside notes.

Originally Posted by BuddyManx

Thanks for that Kirk- It is the "several possibilities" that have got me thinking- as I've been looking at a couple of Real Book versions of "After You've Gone" which have a number of differences in the chord progression-which made me wonder about just how much latitude you have in the choice of more outside notes.

However a post by Fretsource on why chords are bulit in thirds sort of cleared that up:

Chords are built on thirds because they're the smallest consonant (well matching) intervals. Seconds are smaller but clash because they're dissonant, not consonant.

Originally harmonies were built from two-note perfect fifth intervals, but fifths are a bit too pure and bland so they started sticking an extra note halfway between the two notes of the fifth - The new note was a third above and below the notes of the fifth. They sounded good and had an edge that the pure fifths didn't have - so they became standard.
After that they had the idea to start extending the chords by adding more thirds above the fifth and so 7ths 9ths and other extended chords were born. This type of harmony is called tertian harmony because it's made from thirds.

But there are other types of harmony built from seconds and fourths, called secundal harmony and quartal harmony. Modern classical composers experiment with those types of harmonies but most people find them unlistenable because, unlike chords built from thirds, they're ALL dissonant.

SO in choosing chord tones we are selecting for consonance. A penny has dropped I think.

[Kirk Lorange]

Originally Posted by djangowish

Hi Kirk

Honoured for a personal reply,

"All of Me" but not just all of me its night and day and all those classics.
I havent the Lionel Grigson "Jazz Chord Book" 350 entrys standards and originals.

I figure I must understand this book to go further and have taken "all of me" from it

It says in a quarter of a page:
ABAC
Bflat % D7 Am&D7 A0 D7 Gm % etc as with all the others. When I try to play it just sounds all wrong.

I was hoping if there could be a series of video or other lessons/cd on interpertating this language. Maybe there are others with the same ?
I'd sign up for that with your guidance.

All of me seems a well known standard and a starting place.
I have bought your book ( Plane) though waiting arrival though not expecting it to cover this angle

br

Phil

Hi, Phil.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your question ... is it the chord names you're finding difficult to understand? The percentage symbols are baffling ... they certainly don't belong in any musical notation/tab ... maybe that's just your way of writing what you saw inthe book.

I just had a quick play through those chords ... they sound right to me. The first takes up two measures, the next four two beats each, then comes the Gm.

I would think that the 'ABAC' refers to the structure of the tune, as in: play section A, then section B, then back to A then C.

If that doesn't answer your question, could you reword it?

Cheers,

[Kirk Lorange]

Originally Posted by BuddyManx

However a post by Fretsource on why chords are bulit in thirds sort of cleared that up:

Chords are built on thirds because they're the smallest consonant (well matching) intervals. Seconds are smaller but clash because they're dissonant, not consonant.

Originally harmonies were built from two-note perfect fifth intervals, but fifths are a bit too pure and bland so they started sticking an extra note halfway between the two notes of the fifth - The new note was a third above and below the notes of the fifth. They sounded good and had an edge that the pure fifths didn't have - so they became standard.
After that they had the idea to start extending the chords by adding more thirds above the fifth and so 7ths 9ths and other extended chords were born. This type of harmony is called tertian harmony because it's made from thirds.

But there are other types of harmony built from seconds and fourths, called secundal harmony and quartal harmony. Modern classical composers experiment with those types of harmonies but most people find them unlistenable because, unlike chords built from thirds, they're ALL dissonant.

SO in choosing chord tones we are selecting for consonance. A penny has dropped I think.

I'm glad the pennies are dropping, BuddyManx.

Yes, when harmonizing melody lines, we're usually looking for notes that sound nice together -- consonance.

An example came up in the last lesson I did, the bridge from 'The Long and Winding Road'. I knew the melody line, of course, but when I started looking for the chord structure, several possibilities cropped up. Naturally, I wanted the original structure there and had a listen to a few snippets at iTunes to hear what that structure was. However, when coming up with an arrangement, my barre finger happened to hit a 9 over a G chord, turning it into a Gadd9, not in the original arrangement. It sounded so nice there that I included it in my version ... it's an extremely subtle addition to the chord, but because it sounded nice, I kept it in.

It really is as simple as 'If it sounds good, it is good'. 'Sounding good' is the same as 'consonance'. There would be times, however, where you actually want dissonance, especially in the blues/jazz genres. Again, you'd choose those notes that give you whatever it is you want to hear, whether it's consonant or dissonant. That chord made famous by Jimi Hendrix, the sharp nine chord, is very dissonant, but it's used all the time in the blues. In that chord, both minor and major thirds are played together ... about as dissonant as it gets.

But ... once you know chord structure, then keeping track of all those chord tones is the way to keep any kind of 'playing along' in sync with that structure, whether it's playing rhythm or melodically. That's when being able to literally see those chord tones scattered across the fretboard comes in very handy, rather than trying to make scales and modes fit that structure ... chords do that automatically.

[Fretsource]

Originally Posted by BuddyManx

SO in choosing chord tones we are selecting for consonance. A penny has dropped I think.

Just to clarify my quote about thirds:
When you play chord tones, those tones will always be consonant with the notes of the chord. However, the chord itself may be dissonant, (as Kirk pointed out in the chords chosen for "The Long and Winding road".)
Although chords are built from thirds, and thirds are consonant, certain combinations of thirds make an overall dissonant sound, e.g., augmented and diminished triads and all extended chords.
In fact the only chords that are truly consonant are the major and minor triads plus fifth chords (power chords). There are many more dissonant chords than consonant ones - which is great because dissonant chords, in combination with consonant ones, add colour, flavour, the complete range of emotions, and can capture the imagination in an infinite variety of ways.
IMO One of the hallmarks of a great musician, both in improvisation and in composition, is in the high level of control and balance achieved between the opposing forces of consonance and dissonance.

[st_jo]

"IMO One of the hallmarks of a great musician, both in improvisation and in composition, is in the high level of control and balance achieved between the opposing forces of consonance and dissonance."

very well stated.... or typed i should say.

[tevita vulakoro]

Thanx for that u knw...nw u jus let me love my guitar more than anythin...

kind regards n hope for more!!!

[carol m]

Originally Posted by tevita vulakoro

Thanx for that u knw...nw u jus let me love my guitar more than anythin...

kind regards n hope for more!!!

Well said, tv (bro? is it 'ok' for 'girls' to call 'guys' bro? ) but I just know what you mean, and agree absolutely. Is there anything better than having all these musician/musical experts being so 'available' and inspiring us all the time? I don't think so. I definately don't need any help when it comes to loving my guitar (and everything else about guitars and music) but you guys just make me want to play and listen and learn all day
I'm collecting all those dropping pennies and plan to buy Planetalk soon. My only problem is finding the time to put it all into practice (and I do need a lot of time!) Thanks Kirk and Fretsource and all the people that keep this website going

[tevita vulakoro]

thanx alot bro....jus love it too much...hehehe...thanx alot..cheers

[carol m]

No worries, bro. Great to have someone from Suva on board.

[maxmillian]

Haha Kirk..

I've been playing guitar for about 12 years on and off (just songs and rhythm) and in the last year I have been learning lead.. I know my scales and modes backwards but yes, just like you say, I can't make that leap into good melodies on the fly.. I ordered PT and am waiting on that, hoping I haven't wasted my money, but after seeing just how easy you make it in this video I am sure it is going to be a great investment. Not that I am saying learning PT will be a breaze, just that I can now see that there is a structured way to making nice melodies with CT's..

[Live Stone]

Hi fellow pluckers:

Just ordered the big package with all the goodies. I am 62 yrs. old. Been a drummer all my life. The last 10 yrs. been messing with the guitar. I really want to achieve a different level of playing. I am so impressed with Kirks abilities and his mode of thinking. I can play scales and modes, licks but to me I alway seem to be playing in a box that I can't seem to get past. I am like a kid waiting for the lessons because in my heart I know with Kirks help and some good ole hours of practice, practice, practice, I will achieve my goals.

Best to all, looking forward to the forum.