liam 07.11.2015 01:49 |
Hi, Was watching that old guitar tutorial Brian presented and he said it is rare for him to play scales and prefers to play across a chord. What does he mean by this? For example is a chord progression is C F G, does he mean that he would simply play a C major scale he would focus on the individual chords themselves? Thanks! |
DQ1 07.11.2015 04:18 |
you can play scales over chords instead of playing them separately, see this video for further info. link |
thomasquinn 32989 07.11.2015 04:51 |
It's difficult to explain unless you're fairly well-versed in the basics of music theory. Let's say we've got a simple 8-bar song in C major that only uses the C, F and G chords (all major) to harmonize a melody. The chord progression might be something like this (with | indicating a bar line): | C | F | C | G | | C | C | G | C | Now, if you were to do a solo over these chords, you could do a number of things, but we'll stick to the two options in the original question. The 'classical' approach would be to say: the whole thing is in C major, so I will use the C-major scale to solo. Over the C-chords I'll avoid the note F (the 4th, which clashes [is dissonant] with the third, the note E, which defines the chord as major), over the F-chords I'll avoid the B (same thing) and over the G-chords I'll avoid the C (overly simplified, but it'll do). I'll start playing on either a C or a G and I'll finish on a C. The chords will be what we call 'functional' here (from the term "functional harmony"): every chord belongs to a certain degree of the scale and serves to emphasize how a melody is moving towards or away from the tonic (in this case, the note C). The other approach would be what you might call the 'modal approach': you take the same chord progression, but don't interpret it as a single 8-bar passage in C major, but as a series of 8 sonorities (note: this approach works better if the chords don't change too quickly - the slower the so-called 'harmonic rhythm' [i.e., every how many beats the chord changes] the better this approach works because if the chords change quickly, you don't have time to establish each chord as a 'sonority' in the ear of the listener). Now it gets technical. Let's take the scale of C major: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C C, the first note, is now the tonic, F, the fourth, is the subdominant, G is the dominant (all other degrees of the scale also have a name/function, but I'm not going into that here) The three primary chords, C, F and G, all fit nicely in this scale. We can rearrange the order of the notes to put the whole scale in the form of a chord: C major: C-E-G - B - D - F - A (- C) F major: F-A-C - E - G - B - D (- F) G major: G-B-D - F - A - C - E (- G) Now, each note doesn't have a "function" as a degree of the scale (like dominant or tonic), but each note does have a position as a chord-extension. When playing the F-major chord, the note G is no longer the dominant of the scale, it is now the 9th of the chord: it doesn't serve to indicate an approach to the tonic C, but it adds a very specific kind of tension to the F-major chord. Now, so far, the difference between the "functional" and the "sonorous" approach is purely theoretical - however, as you probably know, the octave doesn't have seven different notes, but twelve. Five of them don't belong in the scale. In the case of the C major scale (CDEFGABC) these five are: C#/Db - D#/Eb - F#/Gb - G#/Ab - A#/Bb, or the black keys on the piano. In functional harmony, these are simply dissonances that are 'alien' or 'distant' to the key of the song - if they occur at all, they must occur on the weak beats and resolve to a consonance on the very next emphasized beat. However, when you take the modal/sonorous approach, these notes can make up part of a chord without necessarily occurring on a weak beat and resolving to a consonance on the next emphasized beat - for instance, while the accompaniment is playing F major (F-A-C) in the second bar, you could 'superimpose' the notes Eb-G-Bb (the Eb major chord if occurring by itself) onto this chord, then (just as an example) move either to E-G-C (C-major) to resolve on the next chord, or keep up the tension by, for instance, playing G-B-D (a G major chords by itself), which, over the C-chord, would now mean you've turned it into: C-E-G (1-3-5) G-B-D (5-7-9) - a Cmaj9 chord. It's very complicated to explain but much more straightforward to use. To summarize, it's a different way to interpret the same notes/chords of a song in such a way as to make improvisation more independent from the chord-progression. So it's easier to come up with lines that don't sound predictable, and on many instruments like the guitar, it's easier to tell "where you are" in your playing because you're dealing with chord fingerings, which is what most guitarists tend to play most, rather than scale positions. |
una999 07.11.2015 11:59 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: It's difficult to explain unless you're fairly well-versed in the basics of music theory. Let's say we've got a simple 8-bar song in C major that only uses the C, F and G chords (all major) to harmonize a melody. The chord progression might be something like this (with | indicating a bar line): | C | F | C | G | | C | C | G | C | Now, if you were to do a solo over these chords, you could do a number of things, but we'll stick to the two options in the original question. The 'classical' approach would be to say: the whole thing is in C major, so I will use the C-major scale to solo. Over the C-chords I'll avoid the note F (the 4th, which clashes [is dissonant] with the third, the note E, which defines the chord as major), over the F-chords I'll avoid the B (same thing) and over the G-chords I'll avoid the C (overly simplified, but it'll do). I'll start playing on either a C or a G and I'll finish on a C. The chords will be what we call 'functional' here (from the term "functional harmony"): every chord belongs to a certain degree of the scale and serves to emphasize how a melody is moving towards or away from the tonic (in this case, the note C). The other approach would be what you might call the 'modal approach': you take the same chord progression, but don't interpret it as a single 8-bar passage in C major, but as a series of 8 sonorities (note: this approach works better if the chords don't change too quickly - the slower the so-called 'harmonic rhythm' [i.e., every how many beats the chord changes] the better this approach works because if the chords change quickly, you don't have time to establish each chord as a 'sonority' in the ear of the listener). Now it gets technical. Let's take the scale of C major: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C C, the first note, is now the tonic, F, the fourth, is the subdominant, G is the dominant (all other degrees of the scale also have a name/function, but I'm not going into that here) The three primary chords, C, F and G, all fit nicely in this scale. We can rearrange the order of the notes to put the whole scale in the form of a chord: C major: C-E-G - B - D - F - A (- C) F major: F-A-C - E - G - B - D (- F) G major: G-B-D - F - A - C - E (- G) Now, each note doesn't have a "function" as a degree of the scale (like dominant or tonic), but each note does have a position as a chord-extension. When playing the F-major chord, the note G is no longer the dominant of the scale, it is now the 9th of the chord: it doesn't serve to indicate an approach to the tonic C, but it adds a very specific kind of tension to the F-major chord. Now, so far, the difference between the "functional" and the "sonorous" approach is purely theoretical - however, as you probably know, the octave doesn't have seven different notes, but twelve. Five of them don't belong in the scale. In the case of the C major scale (CDEFGABC) these five are: C#/Db - D#/Eb - F#/Gb - G#/Ab - A#/Bb, or the black keys on the piano. In functional harmony, these are simply dissonances that are 'alien' or 'distant' to the key of the song - if they occur at all, they must occur on the weak beats and resolve to a consonance on the very next emphasized beat. However, when you take the modal/sonorous approach, these notes can make up part of a chord without necessarily occurring on a weak beat and resolving to a consonance on the next emphasized beat - for instance, while the accompaniment is playing F major (F-A-C) in the second bar, you could 'superimpose' the notes Eb-G-Bb (the Eb major chord if occurring by itself) onto this chord, then (just as an example) move either to E-G-C (C-major) to resolve on the next chord, or keep up the tension by, for instance, playing G-B-D (a G major chords by itself), which, over the C-chord, would now mean you've turned it into: C-E-G (1-3-5) G-B-D (5-7-9) - a Cmaj9 chord. It's very complicated to explain but much more straightforward to use. To summarize, it's a different way to interpret the same notes/chords of a song in such a way as to make improvisation more independent from the chord-progression. So it's easier to come up with lines that don't sound predictable, and on many instruments like the guitar, it's easier to tell "where you are" in your playing because you're dealing with chord fingerings, which is what most guitarists tend to play most, rather than scale positions.Yawn |
master marathon runner 08.11.2015 01:34 |
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
Biggus Dickus 08.11.2015 02:03 |
Someone gives a detailed explanation to the question and people whine about that. Good job. |
Reid_Special_98 08.11.2015 06:35 |
To ThomasQuinn, This is probably the most thorough, honest and musically sound answer I've read on this forum. I for one really appreciate this. Thanks for the explanation. I may use this for my own teaching purposes and will give credit where it is due. Really we'll written and makes complete sense. Thanks again! |
Oscar J 08.11.2015 06:44 |
Very well put Thomas, thanks for taking your time. |
tomchristie22 08.11.2015 07:07 |
una999 wrote: Yawn master marathon runner wrote: ZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzAmazing... Those of us who don't understand the theory should at least appreciate that Brian's understanding of it is the foundation for his playing which we so love. |
master marathon runner 08.11.2015 11:01 |
/\ lighten up fellas, it's called humor. I don't doubt the skill and knowledge of thomasquinn's post for one moment, in fact, congratulations and well done. But not everyone has the time, inclination or patience to pore over the theory and digest it, life's to hectic and busy. Come on , ' zzzzzzzzzz' is hardly gut wrenchenly cheeky, - it's just for comic effect man, like I say.........lighten up.! |
The Real Wizard 09.11.2015 00:03 |
^ but it's sad that it comes to that. There aren't many music forums where a post like that would generate numerous immature and troll-ish responses. In most equivalent places for equally big bands such an answer would be celebrated, turning into a wonderful discussion. But on a side note - why is it considered funny to frown upon intellectuals who provide picture perfect answers to difficult questions? I guess it's the same reason why more people watch Honey Boo Boo than Cosmos. |
liam 09.11.2015 00:42 |
Thanks very much for your detailed answer. |
master marathon runner 09.11.2015 03:29 |
/ It's not "frowning upon", it's great British humor. Haven't you heard of Blackadder, Monty Python, the Young Ones, et all, why , even the carry on films get namechecked in Bo Rhap. Such a sensitive lot. Crikey. |
Penetration_Guru 10.11.2015 15:40 |
master marathon runner wrote: / It's not "frowning upon", it's great British humor. Haven't you heard of Blackadder, Monty Python, the Young Ones, et all, why , even the carry on films get namechecked in Bo Rhap. Such a sensitive lot. Crikey.That is a post of such execrable bollocks that I don't even know where to start. |
master marathon runner 13.11.2015 12:04 |
/Start by reading the last line again. |
Raf 14.11.2015 07:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote: But on a side note - why is it considered funny to frown upon intellectuals who provide picture perfect answers to difficult questions? I guess it's the same reason why more people watch Honey Boo Boo than Cosmos."Somehow it's O.K. for people to chuckle about not being good at math. Yet if I said, 'I never learned to read,' they'd say I was an illiterate dolt." Neil deGrasse Tyson Not that people should be judged for not knowing music theory, but this thread is a very good example of how normal it is for people to reject pretty much everything that's slightly intellectually challenging and just joke about it. |
thomasquinn 32989 15.11.2015 05:55 |
It's too bad that this anti-intellectual attitude has taken root so deeply in society, I agree. We've been seeing an 'emancipation if stupidity' over the past decades, where lack of knowledge on a subject has become ever less of a hindrance for voicing an opinion. Scientists are dismissed offhand, and conspiracy theorists with political/ideological agendas are taken at face value. Being ignorant and unwilling to learn is considered a virtue by an ever-increasing section of the population, largely the same people who get excited by politicians like Donald Trump and like-minded individuals in other countries (drunken stockmarket thief Nigel Farage, thinly-veiled neo-nazi Geert Wilders, unveiled neo-nazi Viktor Orban, second-rate dictator Vladimir Putin, etc. I didn't name these people randomly - people who like one generally also like the others). That's a deeply worrying development that threatens the very basis of parliamentary democracy, because if voters don't care about facts and refuse to inform themselves properly, it WILL (not *might*, it WILL) degenerate into mob rule. However, I don't think we need to get too excited over one documented troll (una999) throwing a slur and one other poster jumping on the band-wagon. The way I see it, we have two "my brain hurts!"-style complaints and at least half a dozen people who did like what they read. If those were the same proportions as with the democratic problem I sketched above, we'd be fine. |
Saint Jiub 15.11.2015 12:57 |
Such drama ... What slur did una999 throw? |
thomasquinn 32989 15.11.2015 13:00 |
Ok, even that is too much credit. "One documented troll (una999) who heckled" would be a better phrasing. |
master marathon runner 15.11.2015 18:40 |
Gawd help 'us. |