I know modes, basic theory...but a bit stuck

imalrightjack

So, I know my modes.  I can focus in on basic chord tones when playing lead and understand chord construction.

What next to help me play more freely over non-diatonic progressions?  I tried to go down a jazz path but I don't listen to it enough to get it under my skin to any meaningful level.  As somebody more into shred, I am a bit lost in terms of how to understand what I can play over what, when it gets out of basic diatonic stuff.

It might sound like a silly question but do most guitarists playing this stuff analyse the underlying progressions before taking on the lead?  I manage to play by feel/ear on some things but sound like a twit when it's anything more complex.

Any book/online course you might recommend?

monquixote

So there are a few things you can do:

• Use your ear and just try out notes until stuff sounds good because as you further into music theory you get closer to "If it sounds good it is good"
• Try and hit the chord tones, or things that aren't chord tones, but work with the chord. Rick Beato is great at explaining this. For example if you have an Am chord and you play a G then it's not in the chord, but it's going to make it sound like Am7 so it's still cool. 
• Find out what the "not safe notes are" For example I'm playing about with the "Lay Lady Lay" chord sequence at the moment. It's a bit ambiguous between A Major and A Mixolydian so basically you are fine as long as you are careful around the 7th degree
• Remember that if you are shredding then you can play loads of chromatic and outside notes as long as you hit strong notes like the tonic or the fifth at the end of the phrase especially if you are playing a repeating pattern
• Find the notes from the melody and use those

imalrightjack

Thanks, @monquixote ;

Beato on YouTube?

monquixote

imalrightjack said:

Thanks, @monquixote ;

Beato on YouTube?

Yeah Rick Beato is awesome. 

Also David Bennet is a Piano YT, but he does loads on chords and why they work which has helped me a lot.

Also: Adam Neally is amazing for understanding why music doesn't have to be locked into the Western Classical tradition to sound good.
Weirdly also 8 bit music theory is brilliant at analysing how notes go together, but it's all through the lens of retro computer game music. His videos on modes are superb.

These are all about composition rather than improvisation, but in reality that's what you need to understand.

I found Rick Beato's analysis videos super helpful. Like Alice in Chains might be playing powerchords, but a lead line or vocal harmony is creating upper chord extensions which make it sound really cool and sophisticated. I kind of think of melodic lead as adding notes to the chords.

imalrightjack

Thanks again, @monquixote ;

If you fancy linking any videos in particular, please do!

digitalkettle

imalrightjack said:

...
It might sound like a silly question but do most guitarists playing this stuff analyse the underlying progressions before taking on the lead?
...

I think, probably, the answer is 'yes'...at least until they reach 'Zen master' level.

Transcribe & analyse might be a good way forward. If you get stuck and run out of internet, post a topic here...I've seen some great info.

Why don't you start with an easy one...

(solo at 3:26)

digitalkettle

I just realised I had a go at a transcription a while back (link in my sig...caveat emptor, etc).

Roland

digitalkettle said:

imalrightjack said:

...
It might sound like a silly question but do most guitarists playing this stuff analyse the underlying progressions before taking on the lead?
...

I think, probably, the answer is 'yes'...at least until they reach 'Zen master' level.

monquixote said: Use your ear and just try out notes until stuff sounds good because as you further into music theory you get closer to "If it sounds good it is good"

Using your ears, and finding the notes which sound right, isn’t as hard as many people think. It’s well below Zen Master level. Particularly if you’re focusing on 5th and 3rds. 

digitalkettle

Roland said:

digitalkettle said:

imalrightjack said:

...
It might sound like a silly question but do most guitarists playing this stuff analyse the underlying progressions before taking on the lead?
...

I think, probably, the answer is 'yes'...at least until they reach 'Zen master' level.

monquixote said: Use your ear and just try out notes until stuff sounds good because as you further into music theory you get closer to "If it sounds good it is good"

Using your ears, and finding the notes which sound right, isn’t as hard as many people think. It’s well below Zen Master level. Particularly if you’re focusing on 5th and 3rds. 

That's not really what I meant. I understood the question to be along the lines of: you need to play a solo over 16 bars of interesting chords...shall we hit record first time or do you want a pencil & paper and we'll see you back here in fifteen minutes?

CoffeeAndTV

Short answer is learn about chord tones and voice leading, the longer answer is depending on where you want to take it, it can take a lifetime but with most things, it gets much easier the more you do it.  

Outlining chords and resolving any tension is the easiest way to quickly denote a change in a non-diatonic chord. Or at least for me it is.  There should be a load of books or as I did it by working out solos by people like Wes Montgomery.  

joeW

The humble triad is an awesome tool for highlighting moving harmony.  Esp when you use triad pairs to get some very juicy hexatonic sounds that can be fairly out but sound good as they are part of a very familiar triad.  Used by lots of jazz player and also a fair amount of Steely Dan session players.  

Brad

imalrightjack said:

What next to help me play more freely over non-diatonic progressions?

Play over non-diatonic progressions

Sounds obvious but we have to do (or at least try and fail) things in order to improve at them. It doesn't happen out of thin air unfortunately... or until Elon Musk makes it possible....

You know how chords are constructed, modes and chord/scale relationships so you're most of the way there. The issue now is probably one of repertoire (or lack of). Learning songs and/or having a number of specific sets of changes will give you a framework to operate in and material to transcribe/analyse as @digitalkettle alludes to. The more you work in this way, the easier it becomes and it starts to be instinctive, unless the changes are particularly nasty, then it's a case of just having to put the yards in anyway.

Start off simple with two chords - G to Bb. You'll like this, as these are the chords for Marty Friedman's first main solo in Holy Wars at 03:27. Moving a chord up a minor 3rd is common enough to be acceptable to the ear, yet different enough to get you into non-diatonic playing. During this first solo, Marty is outlining each chord with it's major arpeggio, going though different inversions. Very cool.

Taking the same two chords (well, G∆ and Bb∆ to be pedantic), Pat Metheny takes a different, modal approach, using G and Bb Lydian over these chords in Bright Size Life. Also very cool.

Don't discount the humble pentatonic scale for navigating non-diatonic changes either.

What if we added another chord a m3 above the Bb, so our progression would now be G∆, Bb∆ and Db∆? Etc, etc...

How would you approach it if we make all this minor - Gm7 to Bbm7? What pool of notes jump out at you when looking at these chords? Which scales share any notes between them? Or throw things even further and vamp G∆7 - Bbm7? Two root notes a m3 apart can throw up a host of possibilities to work on and it's only barely scratching the surface.

Ultimately, it boils down to how well one knows the fretboard in the heat of the moment in relation to the harmony presented to them, and most importantly of all... phrasing. Learning tunes, analysing solos, working out your own improvisations in any given context is the key to it. 

KevS

For me there is Playing across chords,playing around chords and playing before chords...
I earned to play across chords first,,like A minor to G to F all using a A Aeolian..Then I took a 12 Bar Blues and Started playing around Chords..
Targeting the chord tones..Playing full modes etc I found didn't sound natural..I still often use chord arpeggios at times laced with Chromatics below the target notes....You can do so much to dress up a target note enclosures etc..

The Idea of Lydian Dominant for a non Diatonic Dominant 7th and a Lydian for a non diatonic Major 7th works great but even better with Arpeggios and target notes..I think 7th Arpeggios Minor,Major,Dominant and Min 7 flat 5 are underrated,,I find them really useful,,then there is inverting them Minor 7th flat 5 to Minor 6..Major 6 to Minor 7..Or superimposition.. Major 7 to minor 9th..

I also think in terms of grids on top of a map on an overhead projector..The grids could be drawn in different colours overlaid on the map...
I think about the Modes / Arpeggios available to me on the same part of the fingerboard this way..Also the chords and arpeggios connected with the scales..

Also even things like changing to a Harmonic Minor from a Natural Minor / Aeolian if the V Chord of the i minor is a Dominant 7th..Only one note different..Suddenly you have Diminished Seventh and Augmented arpeggios to play with..It doesn't have to sound like Yngwie..Just this 1 note difference you can change from Aeolian to Harmonic or a Dorian to Melodic Minor..You start to hear it by ear..So the Grid can have just one note difference...Dorian to Melodic Minor,,Dorian to Mixolydian..The like knowing a root 6 and root 5 major bar chord say..If you look at a Root 6 Aeolian Mode,,if you start on the fifth string instead you get Dorian..These are how I navigate,but as you play these changes,,your ear starts to navigate..I in many cases not know the chords coming up but know,,it's time to go to Harmonic Minor or indeed Melodic..Often it is Melodic as the Altered / Super Locrian and Harmonic Minor as the Phrygian Dominant..I guess this method evolved in me by itself..So it may not work for others..

viz

^ spot on, that last paragraph

Roland

KevS said:

…as you play these changes,,your ear starts to navigate....I guess this method evolved in me by itself..So it may not work for others..

You are not alone. They are just notes which have a sound and feel in relation to other notes. Let your ear navigate. Scales and modes are a way of categorising them after the event.

monquixote

Roland said:

KevS said:

…as you play these changes,,your ear starts to navigate....I guess this method evolved in me by itself..So it may not work for others..

You are not alone. They are just notes which have a sound and feel in relation to other notes. Let your ear navigate. Scales and modes are a way of categorising them after the event.

This is great advice.

People think music theory is this rule book that tells you what sounds good but it's actually a way of explaining stuff.

Sounding good wins.

Lestratcaster

I like to target the chord tones so mostly 3rd's/7th's and resolving on roots. Note choice is more important than doing the scale correctly. 

The Sweet Child O Mine solos are a good example. It's not a massive run of notes its the note placement against the chords that make it work. There's not many notes particularly in the first 2 solos. But they have push/pull, tension/release etc. That's what makes it so great for the song.

Brad

monquixote said:

Roland said:

KevS said:

…as you play these changes,,your ear starts to navigate....I guess this method evolved in me by itself..So it may not work for others..

You are not alone. They are just notes which have a sound and feel in relation to other notes. Let your ear navigate. Scales and modes are a way of categorising them after the event.

This is great advice.

People think music theory is this rule book that tells you what sounds good but it's actually a way of explaining stuff.

Sounding good wins.

Or to look at it another way, music theory is just a way of informing stuff before a note has been played. It puzzles me, this attitude, that seems to reduce theory almost to an inconvenience, only useful for retrospective thinking. Imagine saying knowing the alphabet was only useful after you'd written your New York Times Best Seller?
Granted, knowing a lot of theory doesn't equate to playing well at all but... 

What if our ear isn't good enough to hear the things we want to play?

What if we can't execute what our ear hears because we don't have the required knowledge and/or technique?

What if we get a chart on a gig/session and have been asked to take a solo over a host of tricky, non-diatonic changes?   

I could name plenty of improvisors that it's been claimed know/knew very little in the way of music theory, but music makes sense to these people in a way it doesn't for the rest of us. Their formative years, hard work, technique/phrasing, knowledge of the instrument, aural perception and musical intuition is just more readily accessible to them, particularly in real time.

For the rest of us mortals theory helps bridge that gap much sooner. It's not about rules per se, but just to be able to look at a chord progression and have a fighting chance of getting through it by knowing a bit of theory is a powerful thing.

Barney

I sit with guitar most of the time running through scales ..arps ..triad pairs ..ect ....IV found what really does help is put a backing track on and just start playing over it
Another way that is brilliant for ear training is sitting watching TV and any music that comes up iff adverts or film music start on any note anywhere on the neck and play not by finding the scale that fits and playing in a particular area just move about and go all over the neck ...iff you make mistakes it's ok things will get better ....also film music uses lots of different modes

A book maybe worth looking at is pentatonic Khancepts by Steve Khan ....we all know pentatonics but a lot more ways to use them rather than just over the root 

monquixote

Brad said:

monquixote said:

Roland said:

KevS said:

…as you play these changes,,your ear starts to navigate....I guess this method evolved in me by itself..So it may not work for others..

You are not alone. They are just notes which have a sound and feel in relation to other notes. Let your ear navigate. Scales and modes are a way of categorising them after the event.

This is great advice.

People think music theory is this rule book that tells you what sounds good but it's actually a way of explaining stuff.

Sounding good wins.

Or to look at it another way, music theory is just a way of informing stuff before a note has been played. It puzzles me, this attitude, that seems to reduce theory almost to an inconvenience, only useful for retrospective thinking. Imagine saying knowing the alphabet was only useful after you'd written your New York Times Best Seller?
Granted, knowing a lot of theory doesn't equate to playing well at all but... 

What if our ear isn't good enough to hear the things we want to play?

What if we can't execute what our ear hears because we don't have the required knowledge and/or technique?

What if we get a chart on a gig/session and have been asked to take a solo over a host of tricky, non-diatonic changes?   

I could name plenty of improvisors that it's been claimed know/knew very little in the way of music theory, but music makes sense to these people in a way it doesn't for the rest of us. Their formative years, hard work, technique/phrasing, knowledge of the instrument, aural perception and musical intuition is just more readily accessible to them, particularly in real time.

For the rest of us mortals theory helps bridge that gap much sooner. It's not about rules per se, but just to be able to look at a chord progression and have a fighting chance of getting through it by knowing a bit of theory is a powerful thing.

I think you are misunderstanding what I’m saying.

Lots of guitarists seem to say “I don’t want to learn theory because it will restrict me” which makes no sense.

You can look at something like Stepping Stone which is IIRC E major, G Major, A Major, C Major and be like “That’s wrong they should have used minors on the A and the E” 

Firstly, it can’t be wrong because it sounds good and secondly it’s just not diatonic. If you have sufficient knowledge you can analyse it perfectly well.

It's like that stupid thing people say from time to time that “Science says bees can’t fly”

I think my best way of expressing it might be that theory can point you at things that might be right but it can’t tell you that something is wrong.

Roland

monquixote said:

I think my best way of expressing it might be that theory can point you at things that might be right but it can’t tell you that something is wrong.

Yep. Looked at another way: theory tells you which notes could work, but it doesn’t tell you which ones work really well in a context. It also stumbles a bit once you go into micro-tonal bends because you have to start layering on extra theory.