Bludave
New member
Re: What theory taught me...
Yeah, but you have to know the rules before you can break them!
Yeah, but you have to know the rules before you can break them!
What theory taught me...
- Thread starter Pierre
- Start date
Re: What theory taught me...
I disagree. I know this chick who plays guitar, shes never been taught a scale, has very very little theory training/knowledge otherwise, and yet evrything she plays on guitar sound good .She breaks the rules cause she dosent know them. she just has music in her naturally.
Edit: for clarification she only plays on her own for her own enjoyment, so she dosnt need to know scales or keys to be able to jam with poeple, cause she dosnt.
I disagree. I know this chick who plays guitar, shes never been taught a scale, has very very little theory training/knowledge otherwise, and yet evrything she plays on guitar sound good .She breaks the rules cause she dosent know them. she just has music in her naturally.
Edit: for clarification she only plays on her own for her own enjoyment, so she dosnt need to know scales or keys to be able to jam with poeple, cause she dosnt.
SpiderVenom
New member
Re: What theory taught me...
That's the thing... a lot of people can play really good stuff without much theory. When you're playing with other people, it becomes a lot harder.
That's the thing... a lot of people can play really good stuff without much theory. When you're playing with other people, it becomes a lot harder.
larry_emder
New member
Re: What theory taught me...
I'll bet ya that girl does know some theory....but she just cant explain it to you.
I'll bet ya that girl does know some theory....but she just cant explain it to you.
Re: What theory taught me...
The bottom line is that nobody uses modes "literally" but noob shredders and noob rockers. Experienced players (rockers and shredders included) may or may not think in terms of modes, but if they do use them, they do so in a fashion that makes it extremely difficult to identify that as their method. They mix up the melodic intervals such that even if it is modally derived, the listener can't tell.
Furthermore, if you analyse what they play then you may find the use of this mode or that, but that is strictly open to interpretation. Another analyst might come along and identify a completely different set of modes that come into play from the same passage. In the mean time the person may not have even been thinking about modes at all when they played it. Perhaps they used a completely different method, which by the way is just as theoretically valid.
Music is results driven, not theory driven. Just as in any langauge, there are many ways to say the same thing. Getting locked into one method as "the way" will cause you to end up speaking like Commander Data on Star Trek TNG.
There is nothing worse than to have to listen to a cat that's supposed to be playing a solo run a bunch of stupid scales with full distortion and pinch harmonics thrown in the mix. As if they're really accomplishing something! :chairfall Improvisation is supposed to be melodic at best or at least interesting at its worst.
So think of modes as patterns that help you stay in the right key in the heat of your improvisation. The same way the pattern of the minor pentatonically derived blues scale helps you stay in the right key when you play the blues. It's only a pattern that you can visualize on the fretboard right? Well then the other modes are just an extension of that. Use them in the same way and not as some Holy Grail. But don't be limited by them. As I stated earlier, their are more possibilities that strictly modal methods fail to yield unless you really open your eyes to the true nature of modes and how they may be used to extend beyond the obvious melodic to harmonic interplay.
For example: A noob might see Emaj chord and think to play a blues scale in E, an E Mixolydian or maybe an E ionian. A little bit smarter cat would say, "Hey! If the E ionian will work then maybe the modes of the E ionian would work as well!". But at this point, they still have not done anything beyond the obvious. A player with yet a little more knowledge and experience would say, "Hey! Emaj is the I chord in E, but it is also the IV chord in B as well as the V chord in A! Maybe the modes of Bmaj and the modes of Amaj would work!". That choice is a little less obvious but not beyond the reach of anyone's imagination that knows some basic music theory.
The challenge comes when we start to recognize the fact that we can choose even more remote modal to harmonic relationships. Thats when we start to see altered intervals like the altered 9ths, 11ths and 13ths popping up. Then more chromaticism starts to be incoporated into ones playing. The aim is not to become pointalistic, however. That is unless you desire to become an abstract player of course. For the most part chromaticism is managed as an element of melodic synthesis in order to create interest while still maintaining a certain level of lyricism.
The bottom line is that nobody uses modes "literally" but noob shredders and noob rockers. Experienced players (rockers and shredders included) may or may not think in terms of modes, but if they do use them, they do so in a fashion that makes it extremely difficult to identify that as their method. They mix up the melodic intervals such that even if it is modally derived, the listener can't tell.
Furthermore, if you analyse what they play then you may find the use of this mode or that, but that is strictly open to interpretation. Another analyst might come along and identify a completely different set of modes that come into play from the same passage. In the mean time the person may not have even been thinking about modes at all when they played it. Perhaps they used a completely different method, which by the way is just as theoretically valid.
Music is results driven, not theory driven. Just as in any langauge, there are many ways to say the same thing. Getting locked into one method as "the way" will cause you to end up speaking like Commander Data on Star Trek TNG.
There is nothing worse than to have to listen to a cat that's supposed to be playing a solo run a bunch of stupid scales with full distortion and pinch harmonics thrown in the mix. As if they're really accomplishing something! :chairfall Improvisation is supposed to be melodic at best or at least interesting at its worst.
So think of modes as patterns that help you stay in the right key in the heat of your improvisation. The same way the pattern of the minor pentatonically derived blues scale helps you stay in the right key when you play the blues. It's only a pattern that you can visualize on the fretboard right? Well then the other modes are just an extension of that. Use them in the same way and not as some Holy Grail. But don't be limited by them. As I stated earlier, their are more possibilities that strictly modal methods fail to yield unless you really open your eyes to the true nature of modes and how they may be used to extend beyond the obvious melodic to harmonic interplay.
For example: A noob might see Emaj chord and think to play a blues scale in E, an E Mixolydian or maybe an E ionian. A little bit smarter cat would say, "Hey! If the E ionian will work then maybe the modes of the E ionian would work as well!". But at this point, they still have not done anything beyond the obvious. A player with yet a little more knowledge and experience would say, "Hey! Emaj is the I chord in E, but it is also the IV chord in B as well as the V chord in A! Maybe the modes of Bmaj and the modes of Amaj would work!". That choice is a little less obvious but not beyond the reach of anyone's imagination that knows some basic music theory.
The challenge comes when we start to recognize the fact that we can choose even more remote modal to harmonic relationships. Thats when we start to see altered intervals like the altered 9ths, 11ths and 13ths popping up. Then more chromaticism starts to be incoporated into ones playing. The aim is not to become pointalistic, however. That is unless you desire to become an abstract player of course. For the most part chromaticism is managed as an element of melodic synthesis in order to create interest while still maintaining a certain level of lyricism.
Last edited:
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
Very nice write-up, again Osensei. I do a lot noodling around with the Am pentationic and it hasn't taken much to figure out that I can make it sound like the blues scale that it's known to be or I can make it sound completely non-blues. It's not the scale key or mode that defines what you play and what you sound like. Rather your playing and composition defines the feel.
Very nice write-up, again Osensei. I do a lot noodling around with the Am pentationic and it hasn't taken much to figure out that I can make it sound like the blues scale that it's known to be or I can make it sound completely non-blues. It's not the scale key or mode that defines what you play and what you sound like. Rather your playing and composition defines the feel.
Re: What theory taught me...
Being formally trained in music theory, I have come to accept that there is a definite methodology for creating a cohesive melody in the conventional sense. Thats not to say that one can't go wild, but I leave that for more progressive styles of music. Many ppl understand modes and how to use them. At the same time not all have been trained in understanding melodic properties. So let's talk briefly about what makes a melody tick.
First let's examine the linear relationships between consecutive notes. From one note to the next the following are properties of a "conventional" melody:
1. Stepwise progression - From one note to the next there exists an interval of either a min 2nd or maj 2nd as dictated by the underlying harmony.
Examples:
-- C up to C# (up a 1/2 step)
-- From C to D (up a whole step)
-- C down to B (down 1/2 step)
-- C down to Bb (down a whole step)
2. The appoggiatura (Not sure about the spelling). In this type of melodic figure we have a leap followed by a stepwise progression. If we leap up then we step down. if we leap down then we step up. Where a leap is defined as any interval up/down that is greater than a maj 2nd.
Examples:
-- C up to F then down to Eb (leap up a perfect 4th followed by a step of a maj 2nd down).
-- C down to A up to B (minor 3rd down then up a major second).
-- C up to G then down to F# (perfect 5th up then down a min 2nd).
-- C down to A then up to Bb (min 3rd down then up a min 2nd).
3. Arpeggios which everyone should know as broken chords. Unfortunately, not everyone may be aware that as chords can be played in different inversions so too can arpeggios.
Examples:
Cmaj7 Arpeggio = C E G B but so is B down to C and up to E and so is
E up to C the down to B. You might even call E up to F# down to C then Down to B a Cmaj7+11 arppegio/Cmaj7b5 arppegio.
So when one is improvising (which is creating a melody) then the goal is not to play a bunch of random notes from some scale. Neither is it to run off a bunch of scales at the speed of light. Rather the goal is to use the constructs mentioned above by interlocking each of these three patterns into a cohesive structure. In that way stepwise progression flows smoothly into arpeggios or appoggiaturas and vice-versa.
Being formally trained in music theory, I have come to accept that there is a definite methodology for creating a cohesive melody in the conventional sense. Thats not to say that one can't go wild, but I leave that for more progressive styles of music. Many ppl understand modes and how to use them. At the same time not all have been trained in understanding melodic properties. So let's talk briefly about what makes a melody tick.
First let's examine the linear relationships between consecutive notes. From one note to the next the following are properties of a "conventional" melody:
1. Stepwise progression - From one note to the next there exists an interval of either a min 2nd or maj 2nd as dictated by the underlying harmony.
Examples:
-- C up to C# (up a 1/2 step)
-- From C to D (up a whole step)
-- C down to B (down 1/2 step)
-- C down to Bb (down a whole step)
2. The appoggiatura (Not sure about the spelling). In this type of melodic figure we have a leap followed by a stepwise progression. If we leap up then we step down. if we leap down then we step up. Where a leap is defined as any interval up/down that is greater than a maj 2nd.
Examples:
-- C up to F then down to Eb (leap up a perfect 4th followed by a step of a maj 2nd down).
-- C down to A up to B (minor 3rd down then up a major second).
-- C up to G then down to F# (perfect 5th up then down a min 2nd).
-- C down to A then up to Bb (min 3rd down then up a min 2nd).
3. Arpeggios which everyone should know as broken chords. Unfortunately, not everyone may be aware that as chords can be played in different inversions so too can arpeggios.
Examples:
Cmaj7 Arpeggio = C E G B but so is B down to C and up to E and so is
E up to C the down to B. You might even call E up to F# down to C then Down to B a Cmaj7+11 arppegio/Cmaj7b5 arppegio.
So when one is improvising (which is creating a melody) then the goal is not to play a bunch of random notes from some scale. Neither is it to run off a bunch of scales at the speed of light. Rather the goal is to use the constructs mentioned above by interlocking each of these three patterns into a cohesive structure. In that way stepwise progression flows smoothly into arpeggios or appoggiaturas and vice-versa.
Last edited:
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
Osensei-
Are these 3 rules the pathway to improved resolution between connected notes when improvising or writing solo lines in music piece?
Osensei-
Are these 3 rules the pathway to improved resolution between connected notes when improvising or writing solo lines in music piece?
Re: What theory taught me...
Absolutely, the idea is to flow smoothly from any single one of these melodic structures directly into one of the other types. You've never heard how sweetly a melodic line can sound until you put one together in this way. Even if you are using modes to generate melody, these structures by their very nature will help to create intervalic realtionships that will mix things up a bit. That way you don't come off sounding like a cat thats running a bunch of scales. Rather, you'll sound like someone who can put together intelligent melodic ideas.
Absolutely, the idea is to flow smoothly from any single one of these melodic structures directly into one of the other types. You've never heard how sweetly a melodic line can sound until you put one together in this way. Even if you are using modes to generate melody, these structures by their very nature will help to create intervalic realtionships that will mix things up a bit. That way you don't come off sounding like a cat thats running a bunch of scales. Rather, you'll sound like someone who can put together intelligent melodic ideas.
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
If a guys wants to play like Matheny or Scofield then it's imperative that one know the scales and modes inside and out. You have the know where to go before you know where you're going. That sure is intimidating...that's a lot of work. Unless it's simply a matter of getting the Ionian scale down inside and out, and then knowing that the modes come by starting and stopping at the 7 different degrees of the scale. And knowing when as you have been saying.
If a guys wants to play like Matheny or Scofield then it's imperative that one know the scales and modes inside and out. You have the know where to go before you know where you're going. That sure is intimidating...that's a lot of work. Unless it's simply a matter of getting the Ionian scale down inside and out, and then knowing that the modes come by starting and stopping at the 7 different degrees of the scale. And knowing when as you have been saying.
tone4days
Heel Whacker
Re: What theory taught me...
true about metheny and sco, to a point ...
but you really do not want to over generalize about the ionian mode .. until you hear how absolutely different C ionian is from D dorian (even though they are the same notes), you won't really be 'grokking' it
these questions really opened my ears when i was first posed them and then got to understand the answer
t4d
true about metheny and sco, to a point ...
but you really do not want to over generalize about the ionian mode .. until you hear how absolutely different C ionian is from D dorian (even though they are the same notes), you won't really be 'grokking' it
Code:
let me give you a little quiz to work on to see some things in this area ...
i tried to make the answer text the same color as the background -
highlight it with the curser to reveal the answer
why is it kinda hip to wail an F major 7th arpeggio against a D -7th chord? ...
[COLOR="black"]notes of D Minor 7th chord = D (r) - F (b3) - A (5) - C (b7)
notes of F Major 7th arpeggio = F - A - C - E
so we trade in the (boring) root note in the D-7 for the much hipper E note
which is the 9th of the D root[/COLOR]
what other major 7th arpeggio is cool to blow over a D minor 7th chord? ...
[COLOR="black"]well, it might be kinda obvious that the C major 7th arpeggio works ...
C - E - G - B ...
related to D, the C is the b7th, the E is the 9th, the G is the 11th,
and the B is the 13th
[/COLOR]t4d
Last edited:
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
How about the Amaj7 with it's A C E G? Is that a good choice over the D Minor 7th? I guess I need to learn how to think like that? I suppose I really to need to buy that Frank Gambale DVD to learn how to think this way.
You're right about over generalizing about the ionian. The difference betweent the C ionian and D dorian is real. I hear that by just playing the notes of each. Now it's a matter of really know when and how to use B Dorian or A mixolydian, if at all.
How about the Amaj7 with it's A C E G? Is that a good choice over the D Minor 7th? I guess I need to learn how to think like that? I suppose I really to need to buy that Frank Gambale DVD to learn how to think this way.
You're right about over generalizing about the ionian. The difference betweent the C ionian and D dorian is real. I hear that by just playing the notes of each. Now it's a matter of really know when and how to use B Dorian or A mixolydian, if at all.
tone4days
Heel Whacker
Re: What theory taught me...
A C E G = A Minor 7th, not A Major 7th ... but yes, an A minor 7th arpeggio could sound very cool too
A C E G = A Minor 7th, not A Major 7th ... but yes, an A minor 7th arpeggio could sound very cool too
Last edited:
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
Sorry about wrongly posting the Am7 and calling it an A Major 7th.
Sorry about wrongly posting the Am7 and calling it an A Major 7th.
Last edited:
tone4days
Heel Whacker
Re: What theory taught me...
no prob ...
have you ever played scales in chords? .. pick a key ... say, C major ... and play the C scale harmonized in 3rds, to the 7ths ... so you play C maj7, D-7, E-7, Fmaj7, G7, A-7, B-7b5, and Cmaj7 ... up, then down, the neck ... for this example, use the root note on the A string ... another way of thinking about this is that you are playing the scale notes 'up' each string'
picking different keys to do that in really gets the 'chords in the key' thing into your memory pretty well
worth a shot
have fun
t4d
no prob ...
have you ever played scales in chords? .. pick a key ... say, C major ... and play the C scale harmonized in 3rds, to the 7ths ... so you play C maj7, D-7, E-7, Fmaj7, G7, A-7, B-7b5, and Cmaj7 ... up, then down, the neck ... for this example, use the root note on the A string ... another way of thinking about this is that you are playing the scale notes 'up' each string'
Code:
----------------------------------------
--5---6---8---10--12---13---15---17---
--4---5---7---9---10---12---14---16---
--5---7---9---10--12---14---15---17---
--3---5---7---8---10---12---14---15---
----------------------------------------worth a shot
have fun
t4d
Last edited:
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
no, I've never done that. It looks like a really good exercise. Your right it is worth a shot. I'll work on it.
OK, I see how it works. You are playing the arps for each of the chords, and as you do so you are covering all the notes in the C scale...on each string as you said. Very, very cool.
Thanks, Bill, for offering that exercise. I'll work on it.
no, I've never done that. It looks like a really good exercise. Your right it is worth a shot. I'll work on it.
OK, I see how it works. You are playing the arps for each of the chords, and as you do so you are covering all the notes in the C scale...on each string as you said. Very, very cool.
Thanks, Bill, for offering that exercise. I'll work on it.
Re: What theory taught me...
There are musicians and then there are geeks! When a musician creates a melody then the goal is to create a melody. When a geek creates a melody their goal is to make a phrygian sound or an aeolen sound or a what ever sound.
When I listen to your music and can identify hearing modes and techniques, then I know you're a geek. Such people are only interested in tools and techniques. They go GAH GAH when they can identify, by hearing and analyzing, the modes and techniques in the playing of others. To me that approach is too clinical and anaseptic. Use these tools for what they're good for. Which is familiarizing yourself with the fretboard. To create music you have to dig a hell of a lot deeper.
There have been modal players in the past. They usually abandon they're approach after a short while. Or else they just go on to become "gimmick" players. As Frank Zappa once said, "Steve Vai on stunt guitar!". For I while Miles and Coltrane played modal jazz. Go to youtube and listen to Miles and Coltrane play, "So What". Another group that wrote modal compositions was Return to Forever. You can find them on youtube as well. Listen to "The Dual of Jester and the Tyrant" or "Romantic Warrior" on youtube. That should be a perfect example of what happens when you use modes as a compositional tool.
After hearing some modal compositions, I think you'll finally realize that this is not the direction that you're headed Toad.
There are musicians and then there are geeks! When a musician creates a melody then the goal is to create a melody. When a geek creates a melody their goal is to make a phrygian sound or an aeolen sound or a what ever sound.
When I listen to your music and can identify hearing modes and techniques, then I know you're a geek. Such people are only interested in tools and techniques. They go GAH GAH when they can identify, by hearing and analyzing, the modes and techniques in the playing of others. To me that approach is too clinical and anaseptic. Use these tools for what they're good for. Which is familiarizing yourself with the fretboard. To create music you have to dig a hell of a lot deeper.
There have been modal players in the past. They usually abandon they're approach after a short while. Or else they just go on to become "gimmick" players. As Frank Zappa once said, "Steve Vai on stunt guitar!". For I while Miles and Coltrane played modal jazz. Go to youtube and listen to Miles and Coltrane play, "So What". Another group that wrote modal compositions was Return to Forever. You can find them on youtube as well. Listen to "The Dual of Jester and the Tyrant" or "Romantic Warrior" on youtube. That should be a perfect example of what happens when you use modes as a compositional tool.
After hearing some modal compositions, I think you'll finally realize that this is not the direction that you're headed Toad.
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
You know what I think would be great, if we could get someone to do an analysis of a song or two from some guys like Joe Satriani or Duane Allman or Eric Clapton or Pat Matheny or John Scofield or others to see how they their musical knowledge to work. Perhaps then we could get a glimpse of how the theory stuff works in context.
Take a song the most everyone know perhaps Crush of Love or Ceremony by Joe Satriani and look at what he does in those songs. Of course, I'm not the one who could do something like that. That would be an awesome feature of the clips and tips section.
You know what I think would be great, if we could get someone to do an analysis of a song or two from some guys like Joe Satriani or Duane Allman or Eric Clapton or Pat Matheny or John Scofield or others to see how they their musical knowledge to work. Perhaps then we could get a glimpse of how the theory stuff works in context.
Take a song the most everyone know perhaps Crush of Love or Ceremony by Joe Satriani and look at what he does in those songs. Of course, I'm not the one who could do something like that. That would be an awesome feature of the clips and tips section.
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: What theory taught me...
You're right.
So do Pierre and I need to study at Juliard in order to learn theory and use it rightly? I just want the ability to write and play some pleasing blusy-rock-jazz stuff. Some guys say forget about theory and let your ear guide you and be your judge. I see the freedom it that. However, I'm one of those guys who knows a great song when I hear it, but I don't have the natural musical gifting that it takes to write songs. I'm no Paul McCartney or Eric Clapton, that certainly goes without saying. Therefore, I've assumed that I could learn a few things from theory. I have and will continue to learn as much as I can. Perhaps, It's like I've been trying to learn how to cook by going to an Hors'doerves party. I guess I need to stop trying learn by accident and jump into theory with both feet and hands and just soak it up for a while.
You're right.
So do Pierre and I need to study at Juliard in order to learn theory and use it rightly? I just want the ability to write and play some pleasing blusy-rock-jazz stuff. Some guys say forget about theory and let your ear guide you and be your judge. I see the freedom it that. However, I'm one of those guys who knows a great song when I hear it, but I don't have the natural musical gifting that it takes to write songs. I'm no Paul McCartney or Eric Clapton, that certainly goes without saying. Therefore, I've assumed that I could learn a few things from theory. I have and will continue to learn as much as I can. Perhaps, It's like I've been trying to learn how to cook by going to an Hors'doerves party. I guess I need to stop trying learn by accident and jump into theory with both feet and hands and just soak it up for a while.