Members gnr2391 Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 So I started jamming at these sessions run by a real hard-ass (which is what I like when studying), and he told me that I'm playing too many scales and that I got to think in chords. He told me that when he plays, he doesn't think in scales, which I guess shocked me a bit since all my life I was taught to solo thinking about the scale in relation to the chord. What is your take on this? What do you guys do when soloing? I definitely do agree though when he says that a scale doesn't define a chord, but on the other hand, playing an idea inspired from a scale, whether it may not define the chord, can still sound good over the chord that supports it. Once again. Your input would be very helpful. Thanks a ton!
Members 1001gear Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 If the changes are familiar, I kinda have personalized templates going on and just connect the dots keeping track of the flow/feel/rhythm/emotional content/whatnot. It's like driving briskly on a new road. Lots of multitasking involved.
Members 1001gear Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 I should add; a slow drive through the countryside would also apply. If the tune is such, you'd pay more attention to scenery but still multitask the process. Eventually I suppose you evolve into a seamless musical entity. (not there yet duh)
Members erold Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 I don't know, but I don't think you should be thinking "chords" or "scales" when you solo, but rather have an "idea". How you want it to sound, reverting to chord tones or scales is a bit of cop out for when you need to play but you're not sure as to what, like in an improv situation. It's the safe option but hardly the go to method for good soloing. Sometimes chord tones will be the best option for what you want to say, other times it is really mundane and doesn't really fit with the song at all (even though it sounds ok). So listening is in my opinion the key to good soloing (mind you I'm not good at soloing so take it with a grain of salt), and then any note is fair game if it fits.
Members GreenAsJade Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 Both scales and chords tell you what notes might suit. A common theme here recently has been that the chord tones are most important in rock soloing. http://sixstringobsession.blogspot.com/2010/11/chord-tone-soloing-i-wish-someone-gave.html GaJ
Members JonR Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 Jazz soloists also think more in chord tones than scales.As erold says, they will be thinking mainly about an "idea" - a melodic or rhythmic pattern. But that's a surface consciousness thing. The idea (as they well know) is built from the chord context. What matters to the sound of the idea is how each note relates to those before and after (melodic shape), and secondarily to how each note relates to the chord of the moment.Naturally, most melodic ideas will imply a scale of some kind, but that's irrelevant. The scale is kind of the DNA that underlies the whole thing (chords and melody alike). You kind of take that for granted. But it's shaped by the chords - it makes no real sense without the chords. IOW, melody and chords are the actual musical things that scales produce - the meaningful superstructure of the music. If you go back down to the scale when improvising, you are ignoring all the meaning that exists on top of it. In a sense you are making your job a lot harder!Moreover, jazz soloists will often think chromatically, and that's usually in relation to chord tones. Eg, they'll approach a chord tone from a half-step below - regardless of whether or not this suggests a scale. It works, because that's how we hear music! We hear any single note in relation to the harmonic context (chord). We don't hear it as a scale degree.Or rather we can hear notes as scale degrees (relative to a key), but how strong that relationship is depends on how complicated the chord moves are. In a very simple I-IV-V rock progression, we'll probably hear notes as key scale degrees at least as strongly as chord tones.Eg, in key of G, we'll probably hear a C note as the 4th of the key, as well the root of a C chord or 7th of a D. Of course the latter relationship takes over if the C or D chord is held for some time.In jazz, chord changes may pass through a few different or indeterminate temporary keys, so the note-chord relationship is much more important.Furthermore in functional changes (eg bebop), there is no time on any one chord to think of an entire scale for that chord. It all works through chord tones, and chord extensions or alterations - and in how the voice-leading from chord to chord works.So-called "chord-scale theory" CST is really something developed after the modal jazz revolution, when tunes could be written with one chord lasting several bars, and it became really important (and interesting) to think about complete scales, and to assing one scale to one chord type. The mistake was to apply that in retrospect to functional harmony.Eg, theorists could look back at (say) a Charlie Parker solo and identify a run of notes over a particular chord as (say) the "altered scale". CP himself almost certainly didn't think that way. His thinking was based on what he called the "sweet notes" - the upper chord extensions and alterations that not many people before then played. If you look at his soloing without any CST prejudice, you see strings of arpeggios (including things like 9ths), decorated chord tones, etc. You CAN see scales there if you want, but it's kind of beside the point. It's not seeing the wood for the trees!That's the key phrase for me. Thinking in scales is thinking at a too-deep analytical level - you have dug down below the meaning in the music. You are examining all the individual "trees in the wood" without seeing the bigger picture.To say music consists of scales is like a "duh!" statement. Of course it does - so what? The English language consists of 26 letters. Does that explain Shakespeare? And even if you had Shakespeare's vocabulary (or Bob Dylan's or whoever), it's the way the words are put together that counts.Notes are like letters - they mean nothing.Put them together in intervals (harmonic or melodic) - they start to have meaning, like syllables.Put intervals together in scales - a little more meaning, like words. But no more than that. It's still at the "raw material" level.It's only when the intervals are put together into melodic phrases and into chords - and then into chord progressions - that you actually get music.As a soloist, if you choose to play from scales, that's what it will sound like: like someone playing scales. (Jazz veteran Joe Henderson called it "solos that sound like the index of a book" - all theoretically correct, but musically empty). Of course, you can impart meaning, by building a melodic idea from your scale. But that's so much easier if you refer to the existing melody and chords to begin with. Not only easier, but more relevant to the existing piece of music. If you just work from scales - or even ONLY from the chord sequence - every solo you play is likely to sound the same.IOW, the chords alone are still not enough (better than scales, but still not the whole answer). Many songs may have the same chord progression. Are you going to play the same kind of solo on every tune that uses rhythm changes? Or on every 12-bar blues??This highlights another issue with learning jazz improvisation (sorry I'm going a little OT now...). Because it's regarded as "difficult", students can end up looking for "short cuts" or "easy answers". As if soloing was an assault course, or a driving test, that you had to get through unscathed! "Phew, managed to get round that 7#11 without denting the bodywork!" IOW, a successful solo is one where you played no wrong notes! "Hey, I passed!" If that's your attitude, why play anything at all? You'll certainly avoid wrong notes that way!It's the difference between taking a driving test, and actually going out driving. With latter what matters is not just "doing it right" - it's where you're going! Why do you get in your car in the first place? Not just to prove you can drive - nor even to prove you can drive pretty well (or fast). You do it because you want to go somewhere. (And you don't really need to be a great driver to get somewhere interesting...)Same with improvisation. You should only ever undertake a solo if you have some musical idea you want to express. It doesn't have to be a work of genius, it can be a few simple little phrases. But you have to be inspired, you have to have some idea to start with. Don't do it just because there's space in the song and someone has to fill it; or because it's your turn. In practice, an experienced improviser is always inspired, there's always something to say, because you're always listening.A conversation is perhaps a better metaphor (at least in jazz). If you're with a bunch of people discussing a particular topic, if you have no opinion about it you don't have to say anything - and it's probably better if you don't. But if you know a little about it, it would be rare to have no opinion at all; there ought to be some comment you can make, that no one else is making. And it's not just what you know beforehand that inspires you to comment - it might be someone else's opinion that you respond to. IOW, you listen to the conversation and how it develops - you don't just prepare your comment beforehand and wait for space to say it.Jazz improvisation should be exactly the same. The "topic" is the song. What you know about it is the melody and chords. Trad New Orleans jazz improv was like everyone talking at once, whenever there was space to be heard - like a noisy party. Bebop and later jazz is more like measured debate, each speaker having their turn - but still governed to a large degree by the moment, the vibe, and the rest of the band, not just the pre-existing material. IOW, the band could be like a restless audience, heckling the speaker, challenging him. As the sax player makes some comment, and the drummer might say "oh yeah?" and the sax player will then talk back, or the pianist might chip in.Of course, the great thing about it is that - unlike measured debate - there are no conclusions, no one has to prove anything, and music is not a "language" in that sense anyway. A cool sound can be a good enough "comment", it doesn't have to be "justified".OK, that's enough OT riffing... Now back to the main theme...
Members mosiddiqi Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 As a rock guy, I "think" in pentatonic cliches. Actually, most of the time, I don't "think" in either chords or scales, I try and "think" in melodies and catchy riffs or phrases.
Members JonR Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 Actually, most of the time, I don't "think" in either chords or scales, I try and "think" in melodies and catchy riffs or phrases.Exactly - me too. But I'm working off chord shapes and chord tones beneath that. IOW, I begin from the chord changes (and the various shapes for each chord all over the neck), and then apply melodic and rhythm ideas on top, often developing out of the chord shapes. It's the way I've always worked, teaching myself right from the beginning. It was just common sense, it worked (and still does) and I never had any confusion about how to solo. It's not rocket science! (Hell, I'd write a book on it, if I thought I could stretch it out beyond a couple of pages...) It baffles me, all these people confused about how to "apply" scales. Just don't! Learn your chords instead (and learn to play the melody of the song too of course).
Members mosiddiqi Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 Exactly - me too. But I'm working off chord shapes and chord tones beneath that. IOW, I begin from the chord changes (and the various shapes for each chord all over the neck), and then apply melodic and rhythm ideas on top, often developing out of the chord shapes. It's the way I've always worked, teaching myself right from the beginning. It was just common sense, it worked (and still does) and I never had any confusion about how to solo. It's not rocket science! (Hell, I'd write a book on it, if I thought I could stretch it out beyond a couple of pages...) It baffles me, all these people confused about how to "apply" scales. Just don't! Learn your chords instead (and learn to play the melody of the song too of course). Oh yes, underneath the "think melodies" approach is everything I've learned so far about chords/scales/arpeggio's..the framework if you like. Over the years, what I've found is that I increasingly use small pieces of that framework, sometimes just "thinking" intervals..for example I was messing with this today over an Amin7 vamp I was "thinking" in terms of the sound of pairs of stacked 5ths...and of course it also happens to be just notes from the Amin Pentatonic, but the sound of that lick is perhaps not what many (rock) people are used to hearing from that scale.
Members jeremy_green Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 For me, I used to think scales ..aside from just trying to hear it of course.. so let me alter that to say I used to use scales as my pool of 'usable' notes to build those things I hear from. Then with time I realized that, as JonR kind of said, not all notes of the scale are equally relevant to the particular chords you are working with. Sure they work on some level... but some not as well as others. So these days I am far more in the chords camp. When I am soloing I am conscious of the chord and am working my melodies to live around the tonality of the chord and its extensions. It's mostly finding melodies but using a chording mindset.
Members polishpaul Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 In response to JonR writing this......"Hell, I'd write a book on it, if I thought I could stretch it out beyond a couple of pages..."....I'd wager he could do that very well indeed.And should!Or at least a series here, just for us .It's always a pleasure to read your stuff, JonR.....you can analyse like Star Strek's Spock, but with a warmth he doesn't have.Might I suggest, to follow on from JonR's lengthy and interesting post here, that students set up, with a metronome clicking away, a repeating three or four-chord progression (ii-V-I or I-IV-V-I) in their practice program of choice. Then jam along, but only over one of the chords, again and again, using just three or four notes in lots of different ways, rhythmically and melodically, with slur and staccato, long and short notes, hammers, bends, pull-offs etc etc.....sliding into the chord from below, from above...... eighths, sixteenths, triplets of eights and sixteenths.......just a whole note sometimes, with vibrato...........chromatic ornamentation, grace notes........all over the same chord, in the same progression, zillions of times........all at varying tempo with the metronome.Try using just the chord tones, then using just one or one or two of them. Find out what you like.....what fits......what stinks (good alternative word, Virgman).Record yourself regularly, and save the files so you can guage your progress periodically.Ultimately....listen to your first, second and tenth attempts......and then to your final attempt and the few just before that.Your total amazement is guaranteed!Then target another of the chords.............obviously, after several weeks of this, you will have drilled a beautiful solo into your head........
Moderators Jed Posted December 27, 2010 Moderators Posted December 27, 2010 I was taught to think in terms of chords. But I was never taught how to think in terms of chords. On one level thinking in terms of scales is pretty close to thinking in terms of chords but there are real differences between the two. In actuality, I strive to think in terms of chords relative to the tonal center. That is to say we play against the chord of the moment but in a setting and in a manner that is ultimately reflective of the key. So it's not good enough to think of a Cmaj7 chord in the key of A major as just C, E, G & B or as C Lydian. Those things may be true but it's like using a machete to do surgery. We also have to realize that those notes are the b3, 5, b7 & 9 of the key of A major. Now we can see not only what notes will sound good but also the lines they most naturally fit into relative to the A major. Does that make any sense? cheers,
Members 1001gear Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 Summn like this ... BA3qwguys5k
Members scolfax Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 ...he told me that I'm playing too many scales and that I got to think in chords. These are two of many approaches, and of course you get to use them all interchangeably if you can/want. They are all valid. I think Gilmour uses the chord tone soloing approach, and he sounds phenomenal. So if you look up to this guy for advice, then great. But if he's interfering with your self-expression, then tell him to f-off!
Members polishpaul Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 .....he told me that I'm playing too many scales and that I got to think in chords. Maybe he meant you are playing too many notes. I think a lot of learners fall into this trap. Mr Gilmour does well from his frequent musical sparseness.
Members JonR Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 I was taught to think in terms of chords. But I was never taught how to think in terms of chords. On one level thinking in terms of scales is pretty close to thinking in terms of chords but there are real differences between the two. In actuality, I strive to think in terms of chords relative to the tonal center. That is to say we play against the chord of the moment but in a setting and in a manner that is ultimately reflective of the key. So it's not good enough to think of a Cmaj7 chord in the key of A major as just C, E, G & B or as C Lydian. Those things may be true but it's like using a machete to do surgery. We also have to realize that those notes are the b3, 5, b7 & 9 of the key of A major. Now we can see not only what notes will sound good but also the lines they most naturally fit into relative to the A major. Does that make any sense? cheers, Sure.The bottom line - and I know I've said this many times before - is that every single note has a three-way interval relationship:1. To the overall tonality of the piece: key or mode - scale degree.2. To the curent harmony or chord (as chord tone, extension or alteration) - harmonic interval.3. To melody notes before and after - melodic intervals.We hear all of those all the time, although the relative weight or importance of each varies constantly throughout a piece. Generically too: #1 can be of far greater importance in rock than in jazz. In blues - and in modal music generally - #1 assumes prime importance. But in complicated functional sequences (eg bebop jazz), with a lot of chord subs and temporary tonicisations, diversions through other key centres, it will be less significant; #2 and #3 will tend to dominate (although #1 never disappears entirely, because it's practically a primal human instinct to listen for a key centre).#2 is a "vertical" relationship, in terms of time. But it's not just one way (to the chord root): that's the most important relationship, but there are harmonic relationships with every other note that is currently sounding (and arguably to notes not sounding but implied).#1 and #3 are a combination of vertical and horizontal. "Horizontal" relationships are over time, and involve our short-term memory. In Jed's example, C is a "b3" because a key of A major has been previously established as an aural context, that we hold in our minds while listening to the piece. That's relationship #1. #2 is "root of current chord". #3 depends on whether the C is involved in a melodic line - and in terms of chord tone voice-leading it almost certainly will be, even if it's not a lead melodic line. Eg, if the C chord directly follows an A major chord, we may hear the C as a b2 down from C#, or a m3 up from A - depending on various ways individual notes might be stressed.Alternatively, we could hold an E note across both chords. Its #1 relationship is unchanged, but as the chord changes we hear its #2 relationship change from "5th" to "3rd". (Meanwhile its #3 is "unison".)IOW, there is a huge amount of "stuff" going on when we listen to music, even when just paying attention to a single note. Of course as listeners we're not aware of the details - but the charm music holds on us (at least for western harmonic music) is largely down to this shifting 3-way relationship.But as improvising musicians, we have to be aware of all 3 relationships. The reason a note may sound "wrong", even when we think it ought to be right, may be because one of the relationships is too dissonant. OTOH, a note that seems wrong because one relationship is dissonant may sound good for the other two reasons.Relationship #3 is significant here: a well constructed melodic phrase can ride roughshod over either #1 or #2 (though maybe not over both...)So experienced improvisers tend (IMO) to think mainly in terms of #3. The goal is interesting melodic lines. But they know that those lines sit on top of (and inside) a tonal, harmonic environment. So it's impossible to ignore note-chord relationships. (Well, not actually impossible, obviously... You can ignore them the same way you can ignore the traffic when crossing the road...)And I'm not even mentioning rhythm, dynamics, tone, articulation.... all of which often have more impact than any of the above.Scales?? Pah! I mean, to say one "improvises using scales" - as I kind of said before - is somewhat "duh". It's like saying one writes poetry by using words. Ye-e-e-e-s.....Of course one thinks about word and word choice. But in specific structural ways. Those structures in music are chords and key relationships - which are generally given in a composition - and melodic shapes, which can be improvised within those structures.
Members JonR Posted December 27, 2010 Members Posted December 27, 2010 These are two of many approaches, and of course you get to use them all interchangeably if you can/want. They are all valid. I think Gilmour uses the chord tone soloing approach, and he sounds phenomenal. So if you look up to this guy for advice, then great. But if he's interfering with your self-expression, then tell him to f-off! Well, yes. If you want to play scales, play goddam scales! Who cares? Why is it any of his business? IOW, the idea of "too many scales" (like "too many notes") is a value judgement. What kind of soloing do you like the sound of, or do you want to emulate? How is that kind done? That's the question.To say soloing from chords is "better" is a matter of preference.Personally, I say it's "better" because I always found it easy and obvious, and never got confused as to what to play. "Scales" seems to be "worse" in that respect because everyone always seems to be asking "how do I use this scale?" IOW, in that context "better/worse" is about ease and practicality of application - the avoidance of confusion - not necessarily a better sound. (Of course I also think it's a better sound, but you don't have to agree.)
Moderators Jed Posted December 27, 2010 Moderators Posted December 27, 2010 Summn like this ... I've never heard it played that slowly, . . but he did a pretty good job with it. Tough song, man Carlton is fast with those lines.
Members 1001gear Posted December 28, 2010 Members Posted December 28, 2010 I think the solo on the recording is double speed analog. I was going to post the original but I thought this version better illustrates the harmonic/melodic equation. The harmonic juice is off the scale for me. Made me tear up a bit lol.
Members Steadfastly Posted December 28, 2010 Members Posted December 28, 2010 The short answer; a bit of both. It depends on the song, and how you want it to sound, whether it's more single notes or more chords. Neither is wrong or right, for that matter but what sounds best for each piece.
Members jonfinn Posted December 28, 2010 Members Posted December 28, 2010 So I started jamming at these sessions run by a real hard-ass (which is what I like when studying), and he told me that I'm playing too many scales and that I got to think in chords. He told me that when he plays, he doesn't think in scales, which I guess shocked me a bit since all my life I was taught to solo thinking about the scale in relation to the chord. What is your take on this? What do you guys do when soloing? I definitely do agree though when he says that a scale doesn't define a chord, but on the other hand, playing an idea inspired from a scale, whether it may not define the chord, can still sound good over the chord that supports it. Once again. Your input would be very helpful. Thanks a ton! I've found I get the best results when I really learn the tune; it's melodies, chords, song-form, scales, key changes, arpeggios, intervallic relationships, harmonic structure and voicing leading possibilities to the point where I can manage those things without conscious thought. That way, all I'm thinking about is how to convey the "story" I want to tell when its my turn to offer my interpretation.
Members jeremy_green Posted December 28, 2010 Members Posted December 28, 2010 I've never heard it played that slowly, . . but he did a pretty good job with it. Tough song, man Carlton is fast with those lines. Jed I believe the original solo to that song sped up in the studio. As I recall the story goes he was practicing with a slow version of the track and his practice solo was so good they decided to use it. Then they sped up to match the tempo of the actual track. It must have been close to the speed because the distortion isn't that much - but you can hear it. None of this takes away anything from the beauty of those lines. If it were anyone other than Larry I would think that was lame. But with his skill and resume a move like that becomes art to me!
Members HALSAM00 Posted December 28, 2010 Members Posted December 28, 2010 Alright guys dont stop now!ur givin out lots of valuble information!
Members polishpaul Posted December 28, 2010 Members Posted December 28, 2010 They are kind, aren't they?
Members jeremy_green Posted December 29, 2010 Members Posted December 29, 2010 Take the stairway opening lick. It's just running down the pent. minor scale, jumping to the 4th and continueing down and landing on a note not in the pent (m6th) to create a question? that sets up the next lick. benzem, that solo is a great reference as an example of a soloist (Page) being acutely aware of the chord tones passing. That last note (if I recall correctly) has nothing to do with the fact that it is a m6th to the pent and more to do with the fact that it is the note F .... The same time the rhythm section hits the F chord. Often times these 'interesting' note choices in solos are nothing more than chord tones.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.