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

Brad · May 5

monquixote said:

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.

Hmmm really? I've no doubt you have a more fluid relationship with theory than what has been written so far in that case, but I merely responded to the overall notion quoted, to which you seem in agreement to the suggestion that theory only serves as a post purpose experience. But it does indeed explain stuff and should be used for analysis of course.

monquixote said:

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

Which is very true, but slightly contradicts the original points I quoted no? I say that as someone that is a walking contradiction mind

monquixote said:

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.

To which you've illustrated my point.

We're in agreement that "if it sounds good, it is good", we don't need to theory to tell us that and people too hung up on theory can and do, get hamstrung by it.

My argument is that in my opinion, people look at the use of theory from the wrong perspective.

My point is I don't look at those chords for Stepping Stone and think "it should be Em and Am instead because that's what theory says". I take those chords and deal with them for what they are and I know instinctively what I can use over them, then it's down to me to succeed or fail in playing something worthwhile. I'm using theory to my advantage ahead of the situation. Where it seems the school of thought here is that knowing theory/scales is only useful for explaining what I might have played after the fact. I just think that is wrong.

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.

For me? I get where you're coming from but it's a yes/no situation...

Banging on the note F over a C major chord, whilst theoretically "correct" (in so much as it's in the key of C) can/will sound dreadful. Hitting a Db over a C major chord is theoretically "incorrect", yet can sound wonderful in the right hands. Of course and one point I could only hear it. But I know why theoretically I have to be careful with either of those two tones over a C major chord, despite on the surface level one should be fair game whist the other shouldn't.

Victor Wooten demonstrates this in a lovely way. He takes a solo using all the right notes, but with poor phrasing. Then another solo using all the wrong notes with good phrasing, with the second solo being by far better than the first. But again, that's Wooten and that level of musicianship takes awful lot of work. Simply knowing what notes one "should" or "shouldn't" play isn't the whole story, but can certainly get us there quicker and get us to where we can start to break any rules. There's a Charlie Parker quote somewhere...

Don't get me wrong, ears are everything. But theory shouldn't be a cage in which we are imprisoned, thought of only from a particular angle or disassociated from the playing experience . Is it a framework? Yes. Can it help guide and inform us to where we need to go? Yes. Does it cover every eventuality and should be slavishly adhered to? No. Does it equate to good music/playing? That's in the ear of the beholder of course, but for me it does and doesn't in equal measure.

Theory is never the issue, it's how we deal it that is and that's down to us as individuals. Those that are happy without it, or a very limited application for it? Crack on and be merry

Brad · May 5

Roland said:

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.

On the surface it doesn't. But get deeper into it and it does.

If the OP was asking about the finer points of Indian Improvisation, the conversation would be very different.

Or would it… I studied Indian improv at Uni and it’s governed by its own theory, rules and regulations. Go figure!

Roland · May 5

Brad said:

Roland said:

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.

On the surface it doesn't. But get deeper into it and it does …

We’re edging towards semantics here, but I still maintain that at what ever level theory can only tell you notes that you could play or, in retrospect, how the notes you did play can be understood. You’ve still got to choose which note or phrase to play. You could make that choice based on finger patterns, on knowledge of modes, or on what your ear/brain suggests (remembering that your ear/brain has been trained by what you have listened to and played). None of that is telling you what you should play. Taken towards the extreme, which is a useful way of testing ideas, you end up with lounge music with no interesting melodies or harmonies. Accepted principles of the time would have considered Greensleeves to be dissonant, or that a vocal chorus had no place in Beethoven’s 9th symphony, Tri-tones, blue notes, poly-rhythms, they’ve all come in from the cold, with theories developed to categories them. Yet breaking rules is the role of an artist. It’s what moves artistic boundaries forward. That’s why I maintain that theory only shows you what’s safe. Theory can follow, but can’t lead.

KevS · May 5

I think it works both ways...I knew the Harmonic Minor Scale,but realised I heard the Phrygian Dominant Mode so much stronger than the parent scale..Then after using it for a while..I started to hear where I should change the when I heard a Chord change..So the sound was in my ear..Real time music if I'm improvising,I can now hear where to play it without a chord chart in front of me..

There are many ways for different situations that have developed in me..Not one solid all round method..
This all may be confusing to the OP..But this is genuinely how I do it..

The Melodic Minor ( Ascendening ) for any pedants..lol...I first learned as the parent scale and couldn't get much out of it at first..Then I learned about the Super Locrian / Altered..On a dominant V chord,,I could hear it..It was as the Lydian Flat 7 on a flat II chord I really heard it..It kind of slapped me in the face.."That is what that is"..Lightbulb Moment..Specifically on a Dominant 7 flat 5 chord..So a sub V tritone substitution.This chord change was so strong,,I was listening to old Decca Phase 4 Stereo Ted Heath Big Band records a lot at the time...I later heard Melodic Minor as a I chord on a minor 6 or Minor 6/9 chord..It was Brooding and very John Barry sounding..or playing it over i borrowed iv Minor chord..Lydian Flat 7 is so much easier for my ear than Melodic Minor though..You just hear stuff..Sometimes you have known the parent scale forever,,but you hear the mode much stronger..

Also if Phrygian Dominant doesn't work..Super Locrian / Altered often does as the other option....This is when playing a V Dominant chord to a i Minor..Again based on the Major Third interval of the Dominant V7 chord..

Although just this morning I realised Brian Setzer uses a Whole tone Scale on the V chord in Stray Cat Strut..,it isn't just an Augmented Arpeggio..I know there are many options on a Dominant V chord as the more dissonant..The more it wants to resolve..This is sort of my thinking when I say playing before chords..

The thing is after using this stuff,,you absorb it and hear it..I heard the Lydian Flat 7 flat II Tritone sub thing,before I learned about it..I also never really could find a place Dominant 7 flat 5 chords sounded good before that..

Thinking about it..I tend to play both a 6 and flat 6 note if I've found Pentatonic Minor to find if I'm in Dorian or Aeolian..
I look at Pentatonic Minor and Major Shapes..The more vertical forms as picture Frames..You can hang the 3 minor modes in the Root 6 Minor shape and the 3 Major Modes in the Root 6 Major shapes..

Targeting thirds of non diatonic chords too.. I'll sometimes do the Bluesy Minor to Major third Move..Or The thirds move then root or Seventh..Or alternating between both..

I do a whole load of stuff...But only realise while I am writing it out because it has been absorbed and became instinctive..So as I have said to the point of boredom..lol..I hear the tonality change as the chord changes..

I guess it is a mixture of things and ways that have came together to enable me to negotiate things..
Some of it may not be by the traditional way of teaching things,but it works much more strongly my way..
You know like Phrygian Dominant may come up more than Harmonic Minor..
To me it sounds better playing from Aeolian to Phrygian Dominant than playing Harmonic Minor over both..
Or using yer lovely Diminished 7th and Augmented or Augmented 7th arpeggio on the V chord from the Phrygian Dominant..

Again though,,you internalise it and start to hear where it goes by instinct..Almost like correcting your mistakes when Improvising...

Hope I haven't went around in circles here...

Oh!! and E minor Pentatonic over E G A B C D all as Major Chords to me are basically the sound of Classic Rock/Blues Rock..
So to my cherry picking opinionated ears it is actually the sound of a style..Although I would still play the minor to Major Third move on a few chords..I also I guess from the glorious art of Fucking Around / Exploration would view all chords as possible Dominant 7th forms..Something else I seem to have internalised..Licks based on chords can be used to fit those chord forms in a non diatonic way..

monquixote · May 5

Brad said:

monquixote said:

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.

Hmmm really? I've no doubt you have a more fluid relationship with theory than what has been written so far in that case, but I merely responded to the overall notion quoted, to which you seem in agreement to the suggestion that theory only serves as a post purpose experience. But it does indeed explain stuff and should be used for analysis of course.

monquixote said:

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

Which is very true, but slightly contradicts the original points I quoted no? I say that as someone that is a walking contradiction mind

monquixote said:

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.

To which you've illustrated my point.

We're in agreement that "if it sounds good, it is good", we don't need to theory to tell us that and people too hung up on theory can and do, get hamstrung by it.

My argument is that in my opinion, people look at the use of theory from the wrong perspective.

My point is I don't look at those chords for Stepping Stone and think "it should be Em and Am instead because that's what theory says". I take those chords and deal with them for what they are and I know instinctively what I can use over them, then it's down to me to succeed or fail in playing something worthwhile. I'm using theory to my advantage ahead of the situation. Where it seems the school of thought here is that knowing theory/scales is only useful for explaining what I might have played after the fact. I just think that is wrong.

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.

For me? I get where you're coming from but it's a yes/no situation...

Banging on the note F over a C major chord, whilst theoretically "correct" (in so much as it's in the key of C) can/will sound dreadful. Hitting a Db over a C major chord is theoretically "incorrect", yet can sound wonderful in the right hands. Of course and one point I could only hear it. But I know why theoretically I have to be careful with either of those two tones over a C major chord, despite on the surface level one should be fair game whist the other shouldn't.

Victor Wooten demonstrates this in a lovely way. He takes a solo using all the right notes, but with poor phrasing. Then another solo using all the wrong notes with good phrasing, with the second solo being by far better than the first. But again, that's Wooten and that level of musicianship takes awful lot of work. Simply knowing what notes one "should" or "shouldn't" play isn't the whole story, but can certainly get us there quicker and get us to where we can start to break any rules. There's a Charlie Parker quote somewhere...

Don't get me wrong, ears are everything. But theory shouldn't be a cage in which we are imprisoned, thought of only from a particular angle or disassociated from the playing experience . Is it a framework? Yes. Can it help guide and inform us to where we need to go? Yes. Does it cover every eventuality and should be slavishly adhered to? No. Does it equate to good music/playing? That's in the ear of the beholder of course, but for me it does and doesn't in equal measure.

Theory is never the issue, it's how we deal it that is and that's down to us as individuals. Those that are happy without it, or a very limited application for it? Crack on and be merry

I don't think all this analysis of a point I wasn't making is especially helpful to the OP.

Brad · May 5

Roland said:

Brad said:

Roland said:

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.

On the surface it doesn't. But get deeper into it and it does …

We’re edging towards semantics here, but I still maintain that at what ever level theory can only tell you notes that you could play or, in retrospect, how the notes you did play can be understood. You’ve still got to choose which note or phrase to play. You could make that choice based on finger patterns, on knowledge of modes, or on what your ear/brain suggests (remembering that your ear/brain has been trained by what you have listened to and played). None of that is telling you what you should play.

All very true, and despite it seeming like the goalpost are ever so slightly moving, your default position appears to be that theory is a retrospective thing (which is cool by the way) but that's the thing I'm challenging. Earlier in the thread, you talk about focusing on 3rds and 5ths. Like it or not, that is you, using theory. You may do it as instinctively as writing, we don't think too hard about the individual spellings of each word or sentence construction as they just flow. But us being able to have this debate in this way, is underpinned by our knowledge of a shared spoken and written language. Knowledge that we have learnt over years. I couldn't do this in Japanese, I'd have to learn the a whole new language for that.

Taken towards the extreme, which is a useful way of testing ideas, you end up with lounge music with no interesting melodies or harmonies. Accepted principles of the time would have considered Greensleeves to be dissonant, or that a vocal chorus had no place in Beethoven’s 9th symphony, Tri-tones, blue notes, poly-rhythms, they’ve all come in from the cold, with theories developed to categories them. Yet breaking rules is the role of an artist.

Lol, you don't end up with lounge music because of theory. The OP has a blind spot when it comes to playing non-diatonic changes, not how he can break the chains of music theory so he can usher in a new music order. Knowing some actual stuff and how to apply it will help him get there.

That’s why I maintain that theory only shows you what’s safe. Theory can follow, but can’t lead.

I'm sorry, but I think that is absolute nonsense.

monquixote said:

I don't think all this analysis of a point I wasn't making is especially helpful to the OP.

Well, one of two things has happened. My comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired, or you didn't articulate your position clearly enough and it was open to misinterpretation.

I'll leave it to @imalrightjack to decide if any of this has been worthwhile for him. Other than that, I'm gonna bow out of this one. Been a pleasure.

imalrightjack · May 5

@Brad - there's certainly useful content in here, from yourself and others, but at the moment I have laryngitis and working out what I should pay attention to is a task for when I am on a good ADHD day! Tad overwhelming today...

Thanks, all!

Brad · May 5

imalrightjack said:

@Brad - there's certainly useful content in here, from yourself and others, but at the moment I have laryngitis and working out what I should pay attention to is a task for when I am on a good ADHD day! Tad overwhelming today...

Thanks, all!

Ouch, get well soon!

Axe_meister · May 18

Knowing theory gives you choices you never knew you had.
If all you ever learnt where the Major and Natural minor and standard diatonic harmonisation you limit yourself. Only by playing bum notes (to you) can you find alternative, but that can be a bit hit and miss.
Even if you branch out into the major scale modes, you can get a bit limited as to scale/note choices as soon as chords get a little more complex.
Take a C Major chord. You have 3 scale choices C Ionion, C Lydian, and C Mixolydian.
Now if you suddenly make this a C7 chord your choices become limited (logically Mixolydian would be the logical choice)
But if you start looking further into the harmonic/melodic scales, suddenly you care given more choices than will "work". E.g. You could play the C Phrygian Dominant scale for a nice Spanish flavour.
Alas a lot of the online tuition, concentrates on the modes of the major scale and doesn't go any further. But the second you move out of the basic modes a whole new universe opens up.
When moving between chords diatonic or not (especially an academic exercise) I like to take the underlying chord, consider all "scales" that have those notes and see what notes are common between the previous scale I've used the new Chord tones. So if I was soloing over a CM7 and was using C Lydian, and the next chord was Ebm, you could target the F# (#4 if C Lydian and b3 of Em) then look at modes that have the notes of the Em especially those that have notes 1/2 step up from the notes of the C Lydian scale. This is just one approach that theory allows you to do that you'd never think about. It may sound terrible to your ears. Eventually after a lot of experimentation you come up with approaches you like the sound of and they become your signature sound.

GuyBoden · May 19

Learning theory and learning the mechanics of playing a guitar are easy, when compared with making great note choices.

It takes time, patience, dedication and having some natural talent really helps too.

But, stick with it, even the non-talented like me, improved the longer I played.

It's taken me over 45 years to be mediocre, so be patience.

Roland · May 19

GuyBoden said:

Learning theory and learning the mechanics of playing a guitar are easy, when compared with making great note choices.

In this video we get a theoretical analysis of Chopin’s Em prelude. The actual prelude is played at the end of the video. When you listen to the prelude we hear that Chopin’s note choices are about moving one note at a time, often by only a semitone, to created changing harmonies. Chopin would not have been thinking about the theory when he composed. He was listening to the sound.

https://youtu.be/cXjrLB1yaT4?si=GrZbWNc3E8DESPlT

beed84 · May 24

"F*ck what mode you're playing in. You got 12 notes and how you want to play them is up to you" – Eddie Van Halen

___

I remember stumbling on that quote years ago. While I didn't have the confidence or experience to "just go for it", as Eddie implied, it resonated with me and stuck in the back of my head.

Unable to implement his wisdom at the time, I carried on worrying about theory and applying it correctly, e.g., using this mode over that chord and that mode over the other chord, hitting chord tones, and playing the changes. Honestly, if I wasn't doing any of these things, I was either not good enough or was doing it wrong. No. What I was doing wrong was not playing.

Finally, I stopped getting bogged down with it. Now I learn what I like the sound of, get creative with it and figure out how to make it sound "right" by playing and experimenting. I learn enough theory, but not in a way that dictates how I play; perhaps via musical sensibilities and some serendipity, I do those things I was once worried about. But most importantly, I now have fun. So, yeah. Twelve notes. That's all. Go wild with them and do as you please.

Littlejonny · May 29

If you get in the zone enough, it's possible to hit the right notes on any chord, just by aural skills alone. To solo without fear though, I really need to know the chord changes, or at least what chord is coming next. You alluded to playing the chord tones in your original post - there isn't a huge amount to it more than that - chord scales maybe, chromatic approach notes, enclosures...

The modal approach has never really worked for me - I find it too confusing. Even though I know the scales, my ear just takes over.

greejn · May 29

Worth checking out Open Studio/You'll Hear It. All on keyboard, but entertaining and Adam and Peter are masters of theory.

Jimbro66 · June 23

imalrightjack said:

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?

Take a look at Jack Ruch's YouTube channel. He's predominantly a jazz/blues player but a lot of his tuition videos may help take what you already know and move it forward. His teaching style is pretty clear and thorough too.

Barney · June 23

I think it depends ...a lot is diatonic so when you get the key it's just about making good melodies ...iff playing over a lot of changes I think arpeggios are the way to go ...and not sweep arpeggios but just one octave and really mess about and get good melodies

I think a lot of the time music is made to look complicated which sometimes it is ..but iff you just look at small ideas and make them into bigger ideas I think that's where it's at

Adji · June 26

So I'm gonna be 'that guy' (unless someone else already has been, I haven't read the whole thread to be honest) and ask what you mean when you say 'I know my modes'.

Do you know the scale shapes / patterns on guitar?
That's not really knowing the modes.
If you play A Dorian over a G Major chord, you are not playing A Dorian, you are playing G Major starting on A.
If you play A Dorian over Am7, this is much closer to the point.

It sounds like you are maybe asking: 'I know the scales / sequence, but not sure how to really incorporate them in a meaningful way'. But I could be way off.

As you have probably come across, rather than thinking of A Dorian as G Major but starting on A, it is much more informative to think of A Dorian as A minor with a sharp six, this gives you a much clearer picture of what is actually going on.

The loose example I used to give all of my students: (it doesn't really mean anything, but illustrates the point)
Take the number: 1234
The next 'mode' of that number is: 2341
Yes it has the same constituent parts, yes its 'in the same order', but it is a completely different number.
You wouldn't really think of the number 2341 and being the number 1234 but just starting in a different place.

Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't

longshins · July 6

I’ll chuck a couple of things into the mix that helped me.

Try jamming over a static chord, something easy like an Amin7. Next, think about all the basic triads in the key, so Am, Bmin7b5, C, Dmin, Emin, F and G. Take each one of those chords and use that every now and then as your tonal base to superimpose over the Amin7, it can be fun and you will sneakily teach yourself the whole fretboard.

If you then want to make some more exotic sounds have a look at the ascending form of the melodic minor, that’ll sound interesting but then if you bang it up a fret you’ll gain access to altered tones for ‘outside’ playing. Sounds more complicated than it is. Hope that’s of some use.

JimmyH · July 15

Biggest tip I can give anyone for improvisation, listen to the track you want to improvise over on loop for a few days. Don't even pick your instrument up, sing over it or hum over it. Get some ideas together and phrases.

Make sure you can play what you're singing as you're playing it ( this takes a lot of ear training and practice with scales).

Then tackle the improv.

Don't jump in cold, it's a suicide mission, doesn't matter how good you are, it will be better if you do this.

joeW · July 16

Barry Harris (RIP) was playing in the bebop era and I suspect because there were so many musicians playing together 8hrs a day, there was little need for theory - more of a sink or swim on the bandstand. As he got older and formalised a framework it wasn’t just retro fitting to the aural tradition - in fact I find application of some aspects like a rich vein of ideas to be mined. My ear would not have led me to many of the discoveries that have come from his ideas (tho I have fairly useless ears)

So for me theory can be retrospective or push the boundary of creativity (so to speak).

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

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

Comments