Shaking the Pentatonic

[MusicMadMax]

Hi All,

(First post - sorry if it's in the wrong place.)

I'm currently struggling with my composition. I spend a lot of time writing original blues and rock music but my solos are threatening to become a little... samey. I use the pentatonic scale most of the time because it seems to come most naturally to me when I improvise and draw stylistic inspiration from musicians I like, such as SRV or Robert Cray. My song writing has matured quite a bit over the last twelve months, but unfortunately, I'm now struggling to make the solos match this increased complexity. I have often found that studying the music of artists I like (by this I mean working out how it all goes together by pulling it apart) has been very useful but on its own isn't giving me the necessary tools to do what I want. It's a constant battle for me, studying the masters to improve my musical expression versus writing music and actually expressing myself rather than someone else.

Over the last year the latter has taken precedent. Music has been a stabilising factor for the rest of my somewhat turbulent life - it has brought immense relief to pour a beer, break out the Strat, turn up the Marshall and make some noise. Unfortunately, my technical progression has suffered as a result and I've only just started reeling myself back in now that my life's a bit more settled. I've started to focus on my tone again, watching my technique, drilling on runs... and looking for relevant music theory (since I currently understand very little).

As you may appreciate, writing songs and music keeps me sane. I get to write whatever I want to say. However, I'm now struggling to find the musical 'words' to express my new thoughts and feelings. I'm at 'F' in the thesaurus and need 'G' to 'Z.' So (in an overly long-winded way) I am here to ask for help... I want to know what scales I might best focus on and get some inspiration to move away from reliance on that good old trusted pentatonic when I improvise. Therefore:

What are the most important blues scales you've learnt? Which ones have really influenced your solos and given you the power to shout (musically), "This is me!" Also, are they still relevant in a rock context?

(If they go best/only go with particular chord patterns it would be helpful to mention what they are; after all, you have to bear in mind my lack of musical theory knowledge.)

I look forward to hearing your ideas.


Max

[mjo]

Hi Max,
First, I'll link a thread that deals with different ways to use pentatonic scales, introduces a "dominant pent." and references an article on this site, just in case you don't know about this stuff....
http://www.ibreathemusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17500

Next, you say you're writing more complex songs which, of course means more complex harmony. In order to play over that harmony, you'll have to understand what those chords imply, in context with the song. In other words, it sounds like you need to study harmony at this point, rather than scales.

I could tell you to try: modes of melodic minor ; diminished ; mixolydian ; etc. but that's not going to tell you when to use them.

You may want to post some sample progressions in the Comp. & Analysis or Theory forums and see if others can help you make sense of them.

-best,
Mike

[JazzMick]

It definitely sounds like your at an important stage of your musical development.

I have to agree with mike there. Scales are an important area of study but its the study of harmony that you will probably get more out of at this point.

Sorry I only have a moment to respond to this right now. As a thought though, if its the blues your into. Check out some charts for as many blues tunes as you can. I would recommend looking into the realm of jazz blues specifically.

Getting used to more complex changes can enhance your ability to create interesting sounds over simple progressions.

So as an example.
Typical I IV V blues in F
F7 - Bb7 - C7 .

Compared to something a bit more colorfull.
F7 Bb7 F7 F7
Bb7 Bb7 F7 Am7b5/D7b9
Gm7 C7 Am7 D7

Now you could start on this and think in terms of your Pentatonic scales for the 7 chords. For the ii V9 (am7b5/d7b9) you may just want to start with locrian for the am and mixo or diminished for the D7. Then you just have a pair of II-V's which. you can either treat as Dorian for both or Dorian Mixolydian(G dorian C mixo (both from the Fmajor scale) and A dorian D mixo (G major scale)

Isolate these II-V progressions and try to make simple lines that fit in a way that works for you.

Practice them slowly and pay attention to the chord changes. Then what you can do Is take these new sounds and apply them back over a basic I-IV-V blues. It may sound a bit foreign but I'm pretty sure it will grow on you. It may even give you some insight into what other players are doing when they get a bit quirky over what seems to be a simple chord progression.

Interesting tunes worth looking into.

Charlie Parker - Blues For Alice (this is a more advanced approach to the blues)
Charlie Parker - Au Privave
Miles Davis - All Blues
Thelonius Monk- Blue Monk

You could probably download a reel book online somewhere to get charts for these tunes. Also get hold of mp3's of these tunes.

Now this is definitely not SRV sounding stuff. I'm confident you could learn quite a bit from this though.

Peace.

[JonR]

I'm going to offer a slightly different perspective here.

The issue of "self-expression" via music has always intrigued me. I think many people have a wrong-headed view of it (not necessarily the OP).
IMO, self-expression is not something you can consciously apply to musical performance or composition. Every time you play anything, you are expressing yourself, you can't help it. (Even the choice you made to be a musician is a fundamental act of self-expression, self-definition even.)

You might be attempting to play a note-perfect rendition of someone else's music, but it will inevitably come out as "your" version.

Of course most of the time we are not trying to do any such thing. Even when we want to faithfully reproduce someone else's piece, we are usually a little lazy about exact verisimilitude. As long as we get the right notes in the right order - pitch and timing as close as we can get - we think we've done enough.

But somehow, many of us still think this falls short of "self-expression", which I find baffling. (OK, I guess if you are an orchestral musician, or part of some big band playing charts, your normal job does lack expressive opportunities.)

Of course, if we write our own music - or improvise as freely as we can on someone else's - we are being a lot more self-expressive. So it seems even odder that this activity can be seen as still lacking something in the "self-expression" area.

It seems to me the issue is simply lack of technique (too narrow a technique or vocabulary), or lack of experience with a wide enough range of influences.

I mean, I understand perfectly the feeling that one can't quite approach the feeling or sensation one wants to when playing. Somehow we're not quite "saying" what we really want to say, deep down. It's the artist's eternal complaint (or the relatively naive one's anyway).

But the answer to this is not (IMO) to look further into oneself, to find "original" ideas somewhere in one's subconscious. I believe the answer is to open oneself out more to the external world - look for more inspirations out there. If the music you listen to is not quite doing it for you, either look for music that does; or look more closely at the music you think you know.

The sensation of a frustrating "plateau" is also common - much the same thing as a sense of loss of creative "direction". But I think the answer is the same. It's a result of a kind of spiralling inward, playing the same kind of thing for too long, generally because that's easy (and rewarding up to a point). Eventually you exhaust the possibilities (or think you do).
So the answer is not to go further inward ("my 'self' must be somewhere in here....") - but to turn around and go outward again. This can be extremely difficult, right against the grain.

In one sense, it's obvious. You like eating burgers. Fine. But after a while you get bored with burgers. But the answer is not "hey, where can I find some more interesting burgers?" ;) (Well, OK, maybe for some people it is... :rolleyes:)

Personally I don't recall ever having had such a plateau, or any sense of frustration at not being able to express myself.
I have, OTOH, often felt unable to express a piece of music to its full extent, because of my technical shortcomings. (So I either practice more, or just avoid playing that piece. There's plenty more...)

So I admit I find it hard to understand the OP's comment -
"I'm now struggling to find the musical 'words' to express my new thoughts and feelings."

My struggle (such as it is) has been the opposite. There is so much music out there which conveys thoughts and feelings that I just don't get - as well as music that conveys feelings I do get, but which I can't play well enough. I'm swimming in a sea of musical "emotion" - there's just so much of it out there, I can't access it all.

It's never occurred to me that I might have thoughts or feelings (as a result of various life experiences) that could be expressed in music. I might try to do that sort of thing in poetry. But music (for me) doesn't deal in that sort of thing.

Every time I play the music I can play, the feelings and thoughts it provokes in me surprise me to some extent.
I do have musical ideas - such as melodic phrases, parts of compositions or improvisations - which come with their own "meanings", if you like. I do sometimes (in fact usually!) struggle to find the sounds I hear in my head. But I wouldn't characterise those imaginary sounds as "thoughts" or "feelings". They are sounds I've heard before in some form, whose shape I like, for whatever mysterious reason.
Most of the time, if I try to play the sound I'm thinking of, something else comes out - and inspires something quite new. That's the excitement of improvisation and composition. One small kernel of an idea is something you have to plant out there in the world (as an actual sound) for it to germinate and grow - into something you can rarely predict.

Essentially, I regard music as coming with its own content of "feeling" - which is not susceptible to any other kind of mediation (not communicable in any other terms). Our job as musicians is to transmit that as best we can - identifying what we think the essential elements of the music are that contain that "feeling". (Not even sure if "feeling" is the right word.)
The word "mood" does apply, I think. Music can (easily) evoke certain moods. But those aren't personal thoughts or feelings, as I define them. They don't address our individual concerns (except by accident).

Music tells its own stories. They are not mine, or yours (individually). They belong to all of us; they are fairly universal (at least within cultures). All we do is re-tell them - inevitably in our own voices. We can't help our personal input, as I say. IMO there's no sense in worrying about "personal expression" beyond that.
When we play music we dip into this universal human "pool" of mood. We are outside of personal concerns; outside of "thoughts". In a sense we actually escape our individuality, our inner feelings.

We just each have our own preferences, our own take on what we hear. We make our own choices as to which bits of what we hear we cobble together into "our" music. We steal, cherry pick, from here and there (both consciously and unconsciously). What that mix amounts to is our personal "original expression" - but that only means a personal vantage point on that outer world of music, or our route into it. (People who are bursting with musical ideas - who seem like compositional geniuses - have simply listened to a hell of a lot more stuff than the average person. Their mix of influences stews and bubbles over.)

If, at any time, that mix feels unsatisfactory to us, then we just have to get out there and steal some more stuff. And stop worrying and just enjoy the journey.

IMHO, of course... ;) (Sorry if all that is no use whatsoever! :rolleyes:)

[Schooligo]

Hi MusicMadMax,

welcome IBreatheMusic.com !!

I understand your concerned that one area of your musicianship is not progressing "at the same level" as other areas of your musicianship

and therefore you feel the NEED to "shake loose of the pentatonic sound and it's associated scales"

Well the first thing I would recommend is not "throw out" what you've already learned,

though some people would approach it by starting all over, it has been my experience that is counterproductive,

I get the impression you feel comfortable with pentatonics so lets start there:

for instance there's alot of things you can do with pentatonics, just look at how respected guitarplayers use pentatonics
ie. Eric Johnson, Paul Gilbert, Nuno Bettencourt, John Petrucci, etc.

many of these players have their "individual" take on how they use pentatonics

while sure the way they approach solos is their own individual "personality"

it doesn't mean(that if you like what they are doing) you can't learn and apply what their doing and put your own individual "personality" into it,

many respected musicians do that all the time,

also

there's ALOT of music you can make by using pentatonics and learning to apply them in DIFFERENT ways,

nothing wrong with learning modes and other things your not as familiar with(but realize that with the majority of musicians it will take them more time to apply those strategies, because you will just be learning about modes and their various applications)

you've already stated your influenced by SRV, Cray, etc

so usually that means you like that "sound in guitar solos",(its a sound you liked enough to want to learn to emulate those solos, the musical style, etc)

so lets go with that premise:

if you take what you already know, you can make ALOT of music out of ALL that knowledge, then

learn to apply THOROUGHLY what you already know

consider this strategy:
take what you already know and learn how to use it in different ways,

for instance if were talking about how to learn modes,

you may or may not know, if you take the pentatonics you already know, and add at note here or there you will be playing another scale anyway(probably a major scale, or minor scale),

and many modes are the same notes of a certain scale, but STARTING and ENDING on a certain note to establish a CERTAIN TONALITY &/or major/minor/diminished sound

well I'm sure you get the idea,
the point is take what you already know like pentatonics and learn how to use them thoroughly and in different ways,
and when something new(like modes)build on what you already know(like pentatonics)and apply that knowledge to what your learning that is new

the other thing that comes to mind when reading your concerns is that I would recommend that you sing and write out your solos, and record all your practices

do you know for much of the first year of many guitar instructional schools they won't even let a musician perform solos without writing them out first,

why would they be so strict?

because their curriculum realizes that writing out solos and then letting musicians hear their written solos played back, helps musicians visually, aurally and theoretically make necessary associations about what works and "what doesn't"

things like realizing to play on chordtones during certain important beats, learning to phrase and have parts of your solo that have rests and silence,

now there's a "learning curve" to writing out solos with perfectly placed rhythms, rests, etc

I'm not advocating that approach(while it is very useful and demanded by music institutions, and eventually if your a musician who aspires to keep progressing you will learn how to do this)

I recommend you write out your solos enough so YOU UNDERSTAND what is written particularly the rhythms, then analyze those notes and rhythms compared to the chordprogression played "over the top"

this is one reason I recommend you sing your solos prior to actually physically playing them

singing what you play before you play it, helps you to not rely on all those fingering patterns and "muscle memory" and to instead come up with a solo that has natural phrases because "eventually you will have to take a breath of air"

it also takes practice to sing something and then find that exact phrase on the fretboard,

as to recording your practices, there's nothing better for being an objective musician

the key is it helps you be OBJECTIVE,

when your in the heat of the moment, playing some solo usually you are focused on that part of making music, and so sometimes you don't focus on things like muting technique(so your solos have alot of extraneous noises)articulations, dynamics, etc

you can listen objectively to practices, and determine what "works" and why it "does work",

you will likely find that if you listen to a practice that was recorded 6 months prior to date today, at how much you have progressed,

so it can also be useful for objectively determining your progress

lastly in the event you record something you really like, it will be saved(I can't tell the amount of musicians I have met that tell me they wish they would have recorded some of their practices because eventually they forget what they played and they wish they had a recording of it)

anyway that's a couple strategies(that come to my mind spontaneously)to try and still stay at the "same level" as you desire(without starting all over)

hope this is helpful !!

[ChrisJ]

It's often one or two small things that will open up doors for you and make playing fun and creative.

First off, I'll tell you, to make music interesting, you have to have a way to hear notes against chords. I use a Boss Jam Station that I bought on Ebay for 150 dollars. Before that I used a Yamaha QY 20 that lasted me 15 years. Before that, I used my old man's cassette recorder. Now you have other choices as well, you could use band in a box, or even a drum machine and record yourself using protools. But whatever, make sure you can record a chord progression to a groove and this will at least give you a canvas to experiment over.

I remember, finding the modal scales and this was like a springboard for me.

So try recording a Dmin7-G7 progression and see what you can create using a C major scale over the progression. Or a G-F/G progression playing the same C major scale. You'll be playing the dorian and mixolydian scales. You can go on and on from here but it will start you thinking about some different things.

If you know how to play a minor blues, I imagine you are using the minor pentatonic scale (which is fine), but maybe you want a jazzier sound so try a major scale down a whole step for each of the minor chords (in other wordsa G major scale over an Amin7 chord, etc..). This will give you dorian.

There are plenty of ideas right here on IBM or you can check out the free lessons here as well:

http://chrisjuergensen.com/lessons.htm

[bluesking]

Hi,

I can completely empathise with your situation. I am a huge SRV/Cray fan and love playing that kind of electric blues.

On top of whats been mentioned above (especially the dominant pentatonic scale which has been linked to) I would reccomend one very important thing: Arpeggios. I know they are hard to get used to, they can kind of sound a bit limp and uncomplex, but this is mainly down to how they are being used. Learn to play every triad arpeggio in the C major scale, everywhere on the guitar. You would rarely play such a thing in a blues context, but you need to be able to see these arpeggios as a framework on which you can pin your own ideas. 7th arpeggios have a more useable sound. 9ths once again are very useable. All in a blues context. I pressume you are comfortable with combining a major & minor pentatonic off the same root. This is fundamental to good blues playing IMHO (e.g. G major + G minor pentatonic). Lots of good bluesy notes.

Often times, when we think we have something mastered, it turns out not to be the case. If you only ever used the pentatonic your whole life, you would not be able to master it (philosophically: how could you know when you have mastered it anyway?). There will always be something new about the pentatonic. A lot of it is down to how you use it. As I mentioned, you can combine the major & minor pentatonic, what other combinations can you create? They are limitless. Whenever I play the major scale (as I mention in the post linked to above) I think only in interlocking pentatonics. That is not a limitation to me, it is an eye opener. Never underestimate the littel fella.

On top of these brutish mechanics I reccomend you also think about inspiration and whats going into your ears. As I say, I completely adore almost all of what SRV & Cray have done. But listening to them in isolation will not grant you good results. Both of these guys listened to a huge number of influences, and this was instrumental to their playing styles. As our tastes seem to be pretty similary I might suggest some fairly esoteric guys you can listen to. They are generally pretty bluesy, but push the boat out quite a bit with composition and soloing etc:

Danny Gatton
Robben Ford
Roy Buchanan
Grant Green
George Benson
Steely Dan
Colin John

Of course there is a whole world of non-bluesy stuff out there and all of that is good for your development.

[Darkman]

When arpeggios are mentioned I always think of sweep picking. Do they really help with other techniques also? (apart from rhythm guitar of course!)

[JazzMick]

But the answer to this is not (IMO) to look further into oneself, to find "original" ideas somewhere in one's subconscious. I believe the answer is to open oneself out more to the external world - look for more inspirations out there. If the music you listen to is not quite doing it for you, either look for music that does; or look more closely at the music you think you know.


I completely agree.

It has to be incredibly rare for musicians to have a constant flow of original ideas. I cant think of any musician ever who didn't reflect musicians that preceded them.

Drawing from your inspirations and retelling those stories in your own voice is one of the best things you can do. Inevitably those ideas will grow on you and become part of your own vocabulary and ultimately transform into something totally new.

For a long time I felt like a fraud for transcribing and re-using solos or licks from other players until it became evident to me that for most people that's the only way to build momentum. I still do it all the time and even though I cant say everything I play is my own. It still comes out in a way that uniquely expresses my personal thoughts/feelings about the tune I'm playing.

Sorry If I'm just repeating what you said :p
Great advice though.

[bluesking]

When arpeggios are mentioned I always think of sweep picking. Do they really help with other techniques also? (apart from rhythm guitar of course!)

In my opinion yes, they do. I can't sweep pick, but about half of what I play when I improvise is based on arpeggios.

[MusicMadMax]

Hi again,

Thanks very much for your encouraging replies. You've given me lots of very interesting information which I will start looking into. The difficulty in getting information from more experienced musicians, such as yourselves, is that often I don't understand the technical jargon or notations (tab isn't a problem but if someone mentions a i-iv-V-I blues progression, I'm lost. Truth is, I probably know what it is really, but don't know how people refer to it.). I felt that I need this information if I'm to stand any chance of exploring the deeper intricacies of music, particularly if I intend to exchange ideas with other musicians, and so decided to buy a book on chords and scales which, at a glance, seemed to cover many of the topics mentioned here. I'm hoping that when I've read that cover to cover, more of the information and ideas will come to make sense. I've already picked up some interesting information which has cleared up a few things. :)

Regarding the need to hear what notes sound like over chords, I use Guitar Pro very regularly, playing over it, and note down all the music that I write. In fact, this is usually how I write music, one phrase at a time. I'm sure this has helped my ear (as well as giving me huge enjoyment because it feels more 'real' playing with an acompanyment - albeit an electronic one).

I do use arpeggios quite often as well (though probably not enough in hindsight, at least not in my improvisation). After hearing SRV's Texas Flood, the next song I wrote was an arp-fest.

I usually lie in bed at night with my eyes closed, when everything's quiet, and let my mind play solos that I feel a pro would play. Sadly, when I'm totally focussed like this, I produce music that I can't get close to during the day and with my guitar in hand. I'm sure this will change over time though, and I take a degree of consolation in the idea that it's in there somewhere.

I'm quietly positive that learning theory could well be a huge landmark in my musical development and will open up new doors of expression for me... only problem is there's just so much! Oh well, I'm in this for the long haul I suppose... :)


Max

[bluesking]

I'm quietly positive that learning theory could well be a huge landmark in my musical development and will open up new doors of expression for me... only problem is there's just so much! Oh well, I'm in this for the long haul I suppose... :)

You will be surprised at how easy it is. I've found that theory is really quite easy to pick up. Certainly easier to pickup than chops or a good ear or a good imagination.

The fact that you can imagine solos in your head which you would like to play shows that you have something worth communicating. This in itself is worth more than all the theory in the world.

For me, theory became almost trivial when I decided to focus on chords and progressions. Its all too easy (epecially from a blues background like we come from) to think that scale/note choice is everything. This is mainly because in blues you generally have a fairly open choice of notes & chord wise you can get by with just minor 7th, dominant 7th & the occasional dominant 9. In other styles of music you are actually forced into using fewer notes because the chords & progressions are a little more complicated and multifarious. This of course doesn't make things any harder or easier, just different. But it does require a different way of thinking. Chord tones are the key which opens the lock of all the theory you will need for a very long time.

This is why arpeggios are so important. They are only a map of chord tones after all.

[fingerpikingood]

You will be surprised at how easy it is. I've found that theory is really quite easy to pick up. Certainly easier to pickup than chops or a good ear or a good imagination.

The fact that you can imagine solos in your head which you would like to play shows that you have something worth communicating. This in itself is worth more than all the theory in the world.

For me, theory became almost trivial when I decided to focus on chords and progressions. Its all too easy (epecially from a blues background like we come from) to think that scale/note choice is everything. This is mainly because in blues you generally have a fairly open choice of notes & chord wise you can get by with just minor 7th, dominant 7th & the occasional dominant 9. In other styles of music you are actually forced into using fewer notes because the chords & progressions are a little more complicated and multifarious. This of course doesn't make things any harder or easier, just different. But it does require a different way of thinking. Chord tones are the key which opens the lock of all the theory you will need for a very long time.

This is why arpeggios are so important. They are only a map of chord tones after all.
I'll second what bluesking is saying, in that theory, well the parts of it i've internalized so far at any rate, is really less complex than it at first seems.

for example, the major scale and the minor scale and all the modes are all the same pattern. the difference is which degree, or which note of the scale is the root.

so right there, if you've learned just the major scale you've, in a way, learned all the other modes as well.

one thing i'd certainly advise if you're wishing to get away from the pentatonic is to learn that pattern.

you'll find that your pentatonic is actually housed within the key in many instances. it does occur however to get a really bluesy sound that the pentatonic you're using is actually not within the key scale, but still. you might find that although you're playing the pentatonic alot, it is sometimes in different modes. so sometimes it is part of the key scale of the tune and sometimes not.

so in many cases learning the major scale pattern will give you extra notes, well, 2 extra notes only, but extra notes nonetheless to add to your pentatonic in the same kind of fool proof way that you use your pentatonic.

this alone will give you some extra options to work with. once you've gotten used to that, there are the other notes left, the remaining 5 that can be used also.

you could study modes too that might give you extra options to use, but i find that you can't always use these, they are not as fool proof as the key scale, don't work so well all throughout a progression for example and stuff like that, so i find them less useful in that way. but you might find them really useful. many other posters here find them very useful. and in some types of progressions, they are in fact necessary.

arpeggios and all that are real great also and chord progressions also, they are kind of the same as the single note stuff i just mentionned, but in a chord way. (don't forget chords are just 3 or more single notes played at once, and so they are not completely different beasts that soloing, and so their theory or way to approach them theoretically should not be completely different either). you can learn the chords that are housed within the key scale, know their degrees and know their role or sound relative to that key, and you can also use chords that use a note that's outside of the key, sometimes more, and that's the kinds of progressions where you really need the modes, but they are more rare, and more kind of that exotic jazzish style that i find is less much apreciable by non musicians, but by those with strong knowledge of theory, perhaps much more.

one other thing that i think is real important to consider in broadening your musical repertoire is rhythm. i find this is really underepresented in music theory. mostly because there is not really any theory you can put to it.

you can look at, and name how notes sound on top of each other, but how you phrase them rhythmically and the effect it has on the listener i find is much more obscur and difficult to name or discuss theoretically. and yet i find it really important and a big part of what music is. it could be that simply expanding your rhythmic use of your pentatonic could really make it sound much more interesting and less bland, so try and experiment alot rhythmically as well.

i would recommend that anything you learn theoretically should be practice over a backing track, or just regular songs you like, and you should explore as many rhythmic possibilities as possible.

often it can be that people will seek music theory from a note standpoint in an effort to try and make their music much more interesting and find many more options of what to do to make great music, and so they'll study one thing, and then trying to improve much more, study another, and so on, and they never really master the full potential of the rhythmic possibilities between them. well i guess you can never fully master that anyways since the possibilities are litterally endless, but you know what i mean.

you'll find often that if you study lots of great licks and great stuff that other musicians you like are doing, that from a theory standpoint, from a scale or chord standpoint are not using notes that are outside of your repertoire of theory, and yet it is so good and fresh simply because of how they are rhythmically using it. the phrasing is real important. it's not so much the words you use necessarily but the message you deliver.

something to keep in mind i find.

[bluesking]

you can learn the chords that are housed within the key scale, know their degrees and know their role or sound relative to that key, and you can also use chords that use a note that's outside of the key, sometimes more, and that's the kinds of progressions where you really need the modes, but they are more rare, and more kind of that exotic jazzish style that i find is less much apreciable by non musicians, but by those with strong knowledge of theory, perhaps much more.

I agree with most of what you say above, although this extract is clearly nonsense.

In most cases of non-diatonic progressions you don't need modes instead you need to understand key changes, temporary modulations, secondary dominants etc.

Equally, nothing about non-diatonic progressions is "less much apreciable by non musicians". Purely diatonic stuff bores most audiences, regardless of their musical knowledge. The trick to staying interesting is knowing exactly how and when to break out of the diatonic framework.

[JonR]

Thanks very much for your encouraging replies. You've given me lots of very interesting information which I will start looking into. The difficulty in getting information from more experienced musicians, such as yourselves, is that often I don't understand the technical jargon or notations (tab isn't a problem but if someone mentions a i-iv-V-I blues progression, I'm lost. Truth is, I probably know what it is really, but don't know how people refer to it.).Right. Most of this stuff is just jargon words or symbols for sounds you probably already know. That's why theory is useful - to help you discuss music with other musicians.
Less useful (IMO) in understanding music itself.

I'm quietly positive that learning theory could well be a huge landmark in my musical development and will open up new doors of expression for me... only problem is there's just so much! Oh well, I'm in this for the long haul I suppose... :)Don't be too optimistic about theory improving your playing or creativity.
It will certainly help expand your musical horizons, and give you more sense of control over what you hear and play. But your "expressive" capabilities (improvisation, composition) improve through constant listening, playing and experimenting - IOW, using your ear. Theoretical knowledge is not a great help there, and can even inhibit you if you think about it too much (ie at all!) when you play.

What I'm saying is you should want to learn theory - but out of simple healthy curiosity, and the desire to communicate with others; not in order to improve your playing. (I know quite a lot of theory, but I have to try and forget it when I want to compose something. Harder to forget when improvising, but it still gets in the way quite often.)

When it comes down to it, theory is only names for the sounds. (Like notation is only some kind of sketchy representation of the sounds.) It's the sounds that matter. They are far too more subtle and complex for theory to do more than scratch the surface of what they're really about.
You probably already understand far more about music (by ear, practice and common sense) than theory will tell you. Theory will add to that knowledge - and perhaps help you organise it - but your intuitive aural knowledge is what matters.

[fingerpikingood]

ok, well, whatever, to me that's the same thing, modes, scale changes, technically the terminology means different things, and in this case you might be right, i don't know i don't play with those types of progressions ever, but modes are in a way kind of like key changes, same pattern but moved over, it's just for me, in such cases where the key never settles, then you're in a situation where the chord playing at the time is what matters most.

so in that case, if you switch key all the time, there is never a really correct key in a holistic sense.

so, whne you switch to another chord that way, you can also more freely just treat it as it's own entity, since it is kind of already alone, and isn't part of a bigger picture if you know what i'm saying.

that means, i think, that you can more freely just switch to any mode keeping in mind the modal flavour you will get over that chord.

so if you're switching key every chord, then only the chord for the duration of that chord can give you info what key you're in, and so, it acts kind of like a drone, and you can make it become the tonic of whichever mode you want.

i've not tried it myself, but in theory i think that makes sense. it probably wouldn't make what is imo very nice music, but it should work in a theoretical way.

but, if the progression holds on to a key for a while and then makes a key switch temporarily you can't do that so much i think.

for a progression like this one though, i think you'd be "alright" that way, but honestly no matter what you do for this progession, i don't think i would find it very nice.

[fingerpikingood]

ya, i think basically a good analogy for what JonR is saying here, is you can't become a wine taster by reading a book about it.

you need to taste alot of wine. and learn to develop a good palette.

if you are making your own wine, you could by trial and error tasting it after develop a good wine without ever knowing anything about what all that terminology is about the flavours in the after taste and all that, but knowing all those things should help you communicate better and think about it better, and notice things better.

it's like that with everything. words and naming stuff is huge for learning and analysing and understanding.

but learning painting theory won't make you paint great artistic masterpieces, with great ideas behind them.

learning grammar and writting and vocabulary, and theory on poetry won't make you a great poet, or a great novelist or whatever.

but still if you want to become great at these things, learning all that stuff is certainly a great way to go.

if you want to paint a tree you don't need to name it, or name the word pointy to know leaves on certain ones are pointy and stuff like that, but holy cow learning the words will certainly help your brain remember and make sense of it all. otherwise you need to keep only a visual memory of the thing.

language helps thinking, it is no different for music.

you can learn everything there is to know about physics thanks to language, but that doesn't mean you will necessarily come up with a new theory of everything.

einstein didn't comeup with relativity because he read the right books. his brain thought it up.

it's sort of the kind of trap where you might think that getting the best golf club will make you a better golfer.

so theory will be good for you. it will help you. it is worth it. but it is not magical, it won't make you write great songs, and improvise great solos.

if theory could do that, we'd all be world class musicians. well not we, because i half stink in the theory department. but alot of people in the world would be. alot more than the number there are.

but still don't let that stop you. i don't want to rain on your parade. positive thinking is good, so get right into it full force with enthusiasm, but maybe don't expect it to be so huge so that you don't get down, and expect it to be a slow and sure process.

time goes slow when looking at the future but has passed by quickly when looking at the past. your improvement will be this way. like watching paint dry. until one day you look back on how far you've gone and you're miles ahead.

[JonR]

ok, well, whatever, to me that's the same thing, modes, scale changes, technically the terminology means different things, and in this case you might be right, i don't know i don't play with those types of progressions ever, but modes are in a way kind of like key changes, same pattern but moved over, it's just for me, in such cases where the key never settles, then you're in a situation where the chord playing at the time is what matters most.

so in that case, if you switch key all the time, there is never a really correct key in a holistic sense. Yes. This is the fundamental difference between "functional" and "modal" harmony.
It's a slightly artificial distinction, because most music today (at least in rock and jazz) has elements of both.

But when we talk about jazz of more than 50 years ago (IOW including all the classic bebop and postbop music, as well as swing and earlier), we are talking purely functional music. None of it is modal in any meaningful way whatsoever.

Beginning exactly 50 years ago, jazz began adopting modal practices, with tunes consisting of a few unrelated chords, which didn't share any key centre or overall scale. (Miles "Flamenco Sketches" and Herbie Hancock's "Maiden Voyage" were seminal pieces of this kind.)
Sometimes there would be a relationship of some other kind - eg, in Maiden Voyage all the chords are 7sus4s; or Wayne Shorter would build different chords on the same bass note (what Satriani would later dub "pitch axis").

Rock was less conscious of the modal concept, but got the general sound (the one-chord groove, basically) from folk, blues, and ethnic musics such as Indian raga. (Bo Diddley was maybe the first modal rock'n'roller...:) )

But since the 1960s, both jazz and rock have retained old functional ideas alongside modal ones, and it can be hard to see the join.

Nevertheless I think it's crucial to look out for the distinction, and be true to a composer's intention when improvising. One doesn't have to play a tune at the original tempo, in the original key, in the original metre, or even with the original chords. But one does have to be faithful to the melody, and to the functional/modal purpose of the chords. (IOW, when we use substitute chords, they need to perform the same function as the original chords, at least near enough.)
Otherwise, we may as well play a different tune! (Or compose our own, of course. ;) )

(Ths is just my view, I guess. I can see the argument that all music of the past is up for grabs, and can go into the melting pot in any form we choose. In a sense we do that every time we improvise or compose, because we draw from our memory banks of everything, more or less consciously. It simply depends on how much we respect the past, or whether we feel we can learn from it. We don't have to do either! :) )

[JonR]

ya, i think basically a good analogy for what JonR is saying here, is you can't become a wine taster by reading a book about it.

you need to taste alot of wine. and learn to develop a good palette.

if you are making your own wine, you could by trial and error tasting it after develop a good wine without ever knowing anything about what all that terminology is about the flavours in the after taste and all that, but knowing all those things should help you communicate better and think about it better, and notice things better.Right. I might add that a little knowledge will help you choose the right grapes to grow to start with, and the best way to nurture them.
The difference, of course, is that with wine, if you get it wrong, it's a hell of a job to start again and do it differently (if it tastes bad, how would you know which part or parts of the process went wrong?)
Play a wrong note or chord in music, it's less of an issue - you can correct it in a split second, if your ear is good.
This is because the grammar (theory) of music is ingrained in all our heads, from the first time we ever heard any. You can't say the same for the process of wine-making! (That would be a pretty unusual childhood... :rolleyes:)

IOW, language is a better metaphor, because it's also something we can (and do) learn purely by ear, and then find the books and jargon (grammar) later to help describe how it works (and maybe help us talk it more proper, like :)).

learning grammar and writting and vocabulary, and theory on poetry won't make you a great poet, or a great novelist or whatever.

but still if you want to become great at these things, learning all that stuff is certainly a great way to go.Exactly.
There's an important difference between just learning to speak a language - so we can communicate our thoughts in a way others can understand - and learning to use the language artistically, in novels or poetry.

The latter involves other rules on top of the basic rules of grammar of the language.
We can still absorb those higher rules by just reading a lot of the stuff that is based on them. But it's a lot easier and quicker if we simply study the rules first.

In music, "novels and poetry" are akin to specific styles or genres of music, such as classical, baroque, bebop jazz, serialism, reggae, or rockabilly, or whatever. They're all "music" - so obviously share some basics - but each has its own formal rules which define it.

The metaphor extends to the age at which we learn either music or language.
We learn our mother tongue perfectly without the aid of books or theory of any kind - and at a very young age. When it comes to other languages, later in life, we don't find it as easy, and books of grammar and vocabulary become invaluable.
With music too, it seems that if we learn it at a very young age (if it's as natural a part of our life as people talking), then we become "natural" musicians later, finding it all pretty easy. (Perfect pitch seems to derive from such early experience)
But if we approach music as a new and unfamiliar skill later in life, it feels more like a foreign language - even though it's familiar enough in a passive sense as sounds we hear around us, but we don't have the active experience of making it. (A bit like hearing a French radio station in the background a lot of the time, so we know its sound, but never bother to work out what the words mean.)
einstein didn't comeup with relativity because he read the right books. his brain thought it up.Well yes, but you're on shakier ground here. Einstein was a physicist after all. He HAD read a lot of books. He just made a new conceptual leap, because he was an original thinker.
It took that combination of prior knowledge (of existing science), original creative thought, and a questioning frame of mind. He had to be aware that such a question was worth asking, or needed asking, let alone could be answered. Who else would have cared? The world (outside science) wasn't exactly crying out for a theory of relativity...

Music and science are quite different pursuits, because science (literally) is about knowledge. Theories are all geared towards finding evidence. A theory is something a scientist tries to disprove.
In music, a theory is only a way of describing something musicians are already doing. There is no objective right and wrong in music. Any fool can invent new music any time they want (and many do...).
There is a slight similarity with science, in that a new idea will only be adopted if it works. In science, that means it answers questions, filling in gaps in knowledge. In music, that means that enough other people like it for it to be commercially successful, on some level.
In both cases, a workable new idea is likely to be based on a substantial knowledge of what already exists.

[fingerpikingood]

Right. I might add that a little knowledge will help you choose the right grapes to grow to start with, and the best way to nurture them.
The difference, of course, is that with wine, if you get it wrong, it's a hell of a job to start again and do it differently (if it tastes bad, how would you know which part or parts of the process went wrong?)
Play a wrong note or chord in music, it's less of an issue - you can correct it in a split second, if your ear is good.
This is because the grammar (theory) of music is ingrained in all our heads, from the first time we ever heard any. You can't say the same for the process of wine-making! (That would be a pretty unusual childhood... :rolleyes:)

IOW, language is a better metaphor, because it's also something we can (and do) learn purely by ear, and then find the books and jargon (grammar) later to help describe how it works (and maybe help us talk it more proper, like :)).
Exactly.
There's an important difference between just learning to speak a language - so we can communicate our thoughts in a way others can understand - and learning to use the language artistically, in novels or poetry.

The latter involves other rules on top of the basic rules of grammar of the language.
We can still absorb those higher rules by just reading a lot of the stuff that is based on them. But it's a lot easier and quicker if we simply study the rules first.

In music, "novels and poetry" are akin to specific styles or genres of music, such as classical, baroque, bebop jazz, serialism, reggae, or rockabilly, or whatever. They're all "music" - so obviously share some basics - but each has its own formal rules which define it.

The metaphor extends to the age at which we learn either music or language.
We learn our mother tongue perfectly without the aid of books or theory of any kind - and at a very young age. When it comes to other languages, later in life, we don't find it as easy, and books of grammar and vocabulary become invaluable.
With music too, it seems that if we learn it at a very young age (if it's as natural a part of our life as people talking), then we become "natural" musicians later, finding it all pretty easy. (Perfect pitch seems to derive from such early experience)
But if we approach music as a new and unfamiliar skill later in life, it feels more like a foreign language - even though it's familiar enough in a passive sense as sounds we hear around us, but we don't have the active experience of making it. (A bit like hearing a French radio station in the background a lot of the time, so we know its sound, but never bother to work out what the words mean.)
Well yes, but you're on shakier ground here. Einstein was a physicist after all. He HAD read a lot of books. He just made a new conceptual leap, because he was an original thinker.
It took that combination of prior knowledge (of existing science), original creative thought, and a questioning frame of mind. He had to be aware that such a question was worth asking, or needed asking, let alone could be answered. Who else would have cared? The world (outside science) wasn't exactly crying out for a theory of relativity...

Music and science are quite different pursuits, because science (literally) is about knowledge. Theories are all geared towards finding evidence. A theory is something a scientist tries to disprove.
In music, a theory is only a way of describing something musicians are already doing. There is no objective right and wrong in music. Any fool can invent new music any time they want (and many do...).
There is a slight similarity with science, in that a new idea will only be adopted if it works. In science, that means it answers questions, filling in gaps in knowledge. In music, that means that enough other people like it for it to be commercially successful, on some level.
In both cases, a workable new idea is likely to be based on a substantial knowledge of what already exists.
right, but the thirst of knwledgte and the fact he read up on it and imagined something new are symptoms of the same thing. the curiosty, the questions that must be answered. either by one's own imagination or by the research one does or by both. but make no mistake there is an important distinction you must make as well. the ability to recognize when the current ideology or theory or whatever is in fact wrong or not necessarily factual. to see the flaws in the argument, or the possibilities of refining it.

most people would read whatever the "professionals" have to say about something and just take their word for it, and anyone who would go against common thought in that regard would be considered arrogant and idiotic.

reading the right books will only tell you what the books say iow. you need to know what others before you have discovered in order to further the thinking for science, but knowing this won't make you discover the next thing.

for some things the next scientific step is logical, and the bureaucracy of science as an infrastructural entity will discover it regardless of which individuals occupy which posts.

but there are also some discoveries that require a mind capable of great imagination and great ability to perceive for lack of a better word.

einstein was one of those types. remember, most of what he discovered was from thought experiments. not from laboratory ones.

i'mn just saying, there's no theory books that you can read, or knowledge that you can obtain that will make you one of the greatest musicians in the world or in history.

you need to learn alot of that stuff though, but it is only a necessary component not a sufficient one.

I mean, i could go out and read the entire physics library, but that doesn't mean that i'm going to come up with a theory of everything the following year. even if i'm on the forefront of knowledge.

there's people on the forefront of knowledge constantly, every day, in every subject matter. but ones with such household names as Einstein are few and far between. not just rare in one single generation, but even spanning them.

[MusicMadMax]

Well I was just writing a response here to say thanks for your replies and that my solo writing had been going well recently thanks to an article on iBreathe when, just as I was signing off and about to post it, my computer stalled. :eek: So having rebooted and lost all of those precious words, and being without sufficient time to rewrite them, you'll have to suffice with the following:

Thanks!;)