d halfnote

@ things 2 consider which are actually the same thing. [How's that for some math theory !?! ] THE LONG & WINDING ROAD YA RODE [video:youtube] FUN 'LL TAKE THE LONG WAY 'ROUND Fun will run and play / fun will play around Longer way to run, but it's so much fun / Fun will take the longer way around You can take a shorter cut / Yes it's quicker but Fun will take the longer way around [video:youtube] Don't be a stranger, b/c we're stranger than you !

EVERY ONE SKIPS IMPORTANT STEPS ....that's what learning is all abt BTW / FWIW / everything in music is abt what one plays in the context. The notes that surround what you play are what defines how what that you play is heard. TO BE CLEAR, it doesn't matter what yer intent is. It's how it's heard.

All scales are moveable. Any group of notes is moveable. What defines a scale from just a group of notes is that a scale is a group of notes that spans a full octave & has no significant gaps between notes. A further defining factor is scales/modes have attached to them a particular "mood" or other quality that derives from the effect the particular notes convey...but that quality can also be embodied by just a few notes. It doesn't require a full scale. As far as "how many positions, etc", that kinda depends on how you define position. Some might do so by starting points that are the tonic (the "1" of the scale) or by other main notes like the 3 or 5. Some, like me, might consider any note to be a valid positional mark...but I'm abt as liberal an interpreter of musical rules as you'll find. It might be worth reminding that when one emphasizes certain notes in playing (as sometimes happens when playing in diff positions), it could be considered a diff scale/mode. Ain't life wonderful(ly confusing) !

I heartily endorse the above opinion from my esteemed colleague The entire track, really...best version of "Further On Down The Road" I heard all day ! One Q---is there a sustained kboard bed going on under the other insts or is that just my ears ringing ?! Thanks for hipping me to that site, MusFu !

I knw you see my point, CB, & eventually so will MF (if (s)he doesn't already but do you have some handy maps for playing along the length of the neck ? Or diagonally , string to string ? My whole point here is to encourage outside the box (pun intended) thinking. It can be necessary to get a grip (another gtr pun) on standard approaches when learning but players should always remember that there are diff---& sometimes even new !---ways to do things. FWIW, I'm still wondering abt what MF likes & maybe some specific examples...

A final thought, MF. Realize that, while you might practice particular fingerings in order to learn basic principles, when yer actually playing the way you position the notes of lines should ultimately fit into the best, most efficient fingerings for the context. At some point, you'll see that strict adherence to the fingerings you learn to work across the fretboard might be better adapted to working up & down along the fretboard & jumping from position to position as you mix all these scales, modes & ideas you use in moving past exercises. Best of !

In regard to the most recent remarks here, AString & I've known each other to whatever degree both here & at http://www.thestringnetwork.com (his own cool music & gear discussion site) for a good while so we needn't reassure each other over our mutual affiliation, but as happens, we may have diff opinions. I've the impression that MF does now have a general, if not detailed, idea of the basis of modes & would best learn more by starting to explore them in practice. If one waits til there's a memory bank w/full recollection of the details of all the names, etc. rather than a handy study guide, that's maybe a long time. As I said before I think getting smaller bits of info ingrained is easier (my fave word ). I simply think it's easier to get an understanding of the musical effects in the context of music he's already familiar with than generic chord sequences, esp those lacking a song or tune. If that doesn't resonate w/you guys, that's OK but I do think it's worth trying. ------------------ Now I'm off to chk out MF's link to his track !

Abolutely no contradiction between the emotive & the analytic approach & both are important. They're just 2 views of the same thing. [video:youtube] You have , as we all do, stuff to play with (I live that phrase better than "work on") to take some steps forward but if ya wanna, let's follow some of what we've talked abt here as processes (& I fully defer to AString---along w/some others here--- as an instructor). A PROPOSAL What does everyone think abt this idea? :idk MF, name some of yer fave music. While we as commenters examine those tunes ... [& everyone, I hope, hold back from offering analysis til later after MF does some experiments of his own] What do you think are the scales/modes that can be used to play those tunes, MF ? In some cases there may be more than one option. Do you find, in considering them, some work better than others ? In cases where more than a single approach might work, what do you think the diff approaches create as effects? The idea's not to find The Right Answer as much as to test drive the possibilitease & see/hear how they work & what you like abt the diff effects that result. Cool ? :idk

The mood or feel of the music varies by the specific notes involved, yes, & since the common modern modes are all just a continuous sequence/series of notes, as you shift yer focal point, it can be viewed as a diff mode. Chek the highlighted parts of what I quoted just above. Yer conceptual understanding will become more clear as you actually try things out. If you try to get a full understanding before you start, that'll take longer. As far as planning a solo (or exercise or etude or composition) there are 2 ways to approach music: intellectually or expressively. They needn't be in contradiction nor do you always need to take the same approach but I tend to think the greater value (as well as more "natural" results) come from an expressive approach. Overly planned music can seem stilted. That's why I suggested that yer best progress might be finding music that you already like & have a feel for & exploring how modes, etc, fit into that music rather than working through exercises that themselves may require you to work in new territory. You'd still be learning but you'd already know some of the landmarks. Also keep this in mind---the names of scales/modes/whatever or concepts behind what you play are really just identifiers for talking to other musos, if you get the idea of the note patterns & can use them the way you want, it doesn't matter if you can name them. Music has always preceded the intellectual diagramming of it. The one time in music that it didn't (Serial or Atonal classical music of the early 20th C) the results were mostly unsatisfactory.

Yo, CB, what are those bird sounds that crop up intermittently there ?

My response here is before reading the entries between the quoted questions below & the exchange(s) that followed. Craig's an experienced teacher; I'm a guy who sometimes shows ppl what I know. My experience is based on what I encountered when moving beyond simply playing music to digging into the theory & the history of Western music theory---which did not develop in a single stroke & in fact has changed quite a bit over it's history. Reading trad books on theory I would encounter terms & phrases such as "...the minor 7th...". I'd read that as a reference to a minor 7th chord. It took me quite a while to realize that for older classical musos that meant the interval of a b7. My point being that terms can often be confusing, esp, as you've noted, MF, diff sources may seem similar but in actuality not be so. That's why I always try to deliver small bits of info & suggest that that's the best way to study. "Too much, too soon" & all that ! It's also why I think dealing w/th notes is more clear when using the interval's position [ 1 (tonic), 2, 3, etc ] is more clear than note names. The note name refers to a particular position, etc, whereas the interval number is systematic & clear no matter what position or specific musical example. To me it's the simplest AND the most clear way to designate theory principles. The description of the structure of the modes & the major scale, etc is correct & so is the list of the chords as you move along the major scale. However, as per the idea that terms may carry diff meanings for diff ppl, I find there to be perhaps confusion abt a phrase such as "move the scale". To me that's shifting the scale to diff position but staying in the same place within the scale. I think at times it may be used to actually mean moving to a diff position within the scale. In a perhaps related way I really discount specific fingerings except as relates to specific musical phrases in particular positions---& even then fingerings may change depending on what's happening in a specific musical context & what's comfortable for a player &/or what they're doing with the music, etc. You might jump to a diff string or position or not & all that, to me, is more abt what's happening in each specific situation. Dig ? Plus, so far the discussion here's mostly been abt the single note aspects of things,. The chordal/harmonic aspects may complicate things til you get a more definite idea of the musical tone of diff modes. :idk That said, let me maybe muddy the waters myself by suggesting this: In the same way I suggested keeping to the pentatonic skeleton & adding notes as needed, I wonder if it would be helpful to begin the study of the chordal/harmonic aspects of mode/scale interactions by reducing the scale(s) to the intervals involved in the most common chords. For example, if we run through this series of chords (from above), which are the chords most common to the key of C major ... 1. C Maj 2. Dm 3. Em 4. Fmaj 5. G Maj 6.Am 7. B dim We might also (& I think more systematically) think of them this way. 1. C Maj = I maj 2. Dm = II min [more traditionally this is usually written as ii m---same thing really, just lower case for the minor chords} 3. Em = III m ( or iii m) 4. Fmaj = IV 5. G Maj = V 6.Am = VI m (vi m) 7. B dim = VII dim (vii) [& if you haven't seen it, there's a symbol for the dim chord that looks like math exponent, a tiny zero up by the top of whichever designation you use, letter name or number name] Further, we might reduce the identification of the chords to this, based on their intervallic structure, instead of using the note names... [Note that these intervals are based on strictly keeping to the unaltered key while in actual use some song might have an Em 9, for instance b/c songs shift keys all the time while they're actually driving around the streets in yer town ] 1. C Maj = 1 3 5 [ with potential additions of M7 9 ] 2. Dm = 1 b3 5 [ w/additions of b7 9 ] 3. Em = 1 b3 5 [ b7 b9 ] 4. Fmaj = 1 3 5 [ M7 9 ] 5. G Maj = 1 3 5 [ b7 9 ] 6. Am = 1 b3 5 [ b7 9 ] 7. B dim = 1 b3 b5 [ b7 ] [bTW, that's usually called a 1/2 dim chord b/c the 7th interval breaks the pattern of diminished intervals that build the chord in its usual modern use / for a "full dim" chord, that 7th gets flatted again so its a bb7 in that case]... All that may fall into the category of TMI at this point but, as I wondered, does the numerical designation of the intervals help make the patterns more clear than translating the note names between chords ?

As AString's already answered,that's yes. & that's b/c all this stuff is just shifting the view one takes of any mode's tonic note. Mostly correct. I think you have the concept in general. But the starting point gives the mode a diff name, so while they're all kinda like a DNA helix that repeats, each sequence segment gets its own ID. {BTW, in identifying notes there are 3 ways: --- the sound they have (which is,I think,the most important to internalize); --- their note name (A...B...C...etc); --- their position in a scale set designated by number [1 = tonic, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 (octave)] That last is also maybe a better way to realize their overall relationships than by letter names...& is handy for when you get to analyses of multi-octave lines & some pianist is talking abt 10ths (an octave + 3rd) & other extended intervals. See, the 2 versions of the pentatonic (or the whole system of modes) are just variations in how some of the notes relate to each other aurally. The way a b3 differs from a M3 or how a b7 or M 7 give the music being played diff emotive or expressive feels. That same effect comes when any notes in the scale are varied. Octave & 5th, octave &b5 or octave & #5---all give a diff feel. Same w/varying the 6th (which will come into play later when you start considering the variant forms of minor scales, a subject made overly complicated in trad theory & one which you needn't get hung up abt right now). That's basically what I meant, however I think that's still tryna look at this from the destination rather than the starting point. I'd start by taking some tunes/chord progs/pieces of music that you like & are already familiar with & examining the notes involved to see/hear how they make themselves distinctive to you. That will give you a direct idea of the effect these note variations make you or others feel (which will not always be the same for everyone but will tend to be similar) & yer familiarity w/them will make it both easier to recognize these effects as well as make the study more fun than if yer starting w/material that yer not familiar with or may not even like. Never make yer studies into chores.

1st a li'l music for the holidaze [video:youtube] This is yer world ! [video:youtube] Somethings are timeless [video:youtube] But you can still count the things that count [video:youtube] Betcha didn't know this was a reggae tune [video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo1M42LdjaU Long time comin / long time gone [video:youtube]

In re the highlighted text in the quote, I don't think you need to that. First, that looks to me like another diversion from directly pursuing what yer intent is. Moreover, & to paraphrase John Lennon, who wasn't the most schooled musician but was extremely skilled at expressing himself musically (& who, FWIW, unlike McCartney, was never recorded singing off pitch), "No matter where you start, it's where you start." Anywhat, I think you should stick with this idea: The 2 pentatonic scales can be considered the basis of the other scales. Yer already proficient at that. Think of the main modes & everything else as just the pentatonic scales w/a couple other notes added (as has been mentioned above). I think that will actually help you w/understanding the structures of modes/scales b/c instead of tryna reconceptualize a buncha new note sets, you'd simply be taking the basic pentatonic forms (which you already have a grasp of) & test-driving the added notes. I think that would both save you a few steps & emphasize more clearly the diffs those added notes make. In any case, don't worry so much abt how you learn but realize that if yer learning something, yer learning & sooner or later yer concepts will deepen & that ("Oh, Man !") even then you'll never know everything abt music's possibilities.

[video:youtube] I guess I was stressing a learning method concept more than the desired A to the Q.

Cool, SG ! & check yer private ms ...

Well, attention is the primary tool to exercise !

Cool, MF ! Not implying yer wasting my or anyone's time, just that we may not be communicating eye-to-eye, if you see what I mean... I just try to encourage ppl to develop their own identity as musos, ergo, take a gander outside the usual methods...for ex., one might finger any set of notes on any set of strings in various ways depending on where exactly they were going...dig ? I trust you do ! Remember: what sounds the way you want it to is what's right for the music.

& I think that's a good idea. There've been several approaches offered here that are, in many ways, similar. I have no criticism of any of the ideas offered so far (other than, even in the case of my suggestions there's been no mention of singing the notes while playing as a way of deepening the internalization of pitch). I am kinda getting the impression, however, that sometimes ppl want things defined for them w/out actually working to develop their understanding independently or recognizing that the "right" way to play music is somewhat mutable. I could be wrong in the present instance, but I'm confused when someone keeps asking what seem to me variations on the same question. :idk

Good point abt modes technically in 1 key being applied to another. That also reiterates that the modes mostly used are all just a series of shifts of the major scale. In this case it could be said that using the Mixolydian mode 1 full step lower than the intended key is the equivalent to using the Aolian mode (the next higher mode in the series) in A. But all that's a bit theoretical. I again urge anyone studying this or any aspect of music to just start playing along some plan of study in order to begin grasping how all this functions, both aurally & conceptually. As long as the approach is "tell me what to play over some chord" rather than "give me an idea how this works & how I can study it" (which has been done here, in several slightly diff ways) any student's just following directions, not learning how to hear what's happening. Does that seem too persnickety ? The best way to learn is a bit at a time & by active practice.

No, not really. You will always only be working on one thing at a time, no matter how you try to approach this. As I mentioned before, my suggestions are that you work on narrow areas & try to hear how they function. Could it be that yer tryna get quick answers to Qs that don't work the way you hope ?

This week my brain said, "How abt some classic reggae?" What most defines that genre ? The off-beat syncopation of the bass, of course ! [video:youtube] [video:youtube] [video:youtube] [video:youtube]

Good points, SF, esp abt the pentatonic being just a subset of larger scales that can vary as one select which notes to add. &, if not too obvious, there are 2 pentatonic scale: the happy major one & the bluesy one.

While on record as looking at musical Qs as a bit outside The Rules, I'd be remiss if not pointing out that when using modes yer still just using scales & those still hafta fit the musical context. If you try to fit a mode w/maj 3rd in over a minor chord, yer gonna hafta do some shifting. As you already seem cognizant, also, as you play any piece of music yer gonna shift between scale concepts as the chords shift. Little music actually stays in one tonicity throughout. I suggest that you use a slightly diff approach. Pick the music you want to practice, play along enough to find the notes involved & consider which modes/scales would be involved. That way yer investigating what the music naturally calls for. Use that as yer main approach &, as a separate experiment, try applying particular modes to songs to see how they fit or feel in those contexts...which is what your plan sounds like to me. Sometimes it will seem to fit perfectly, sometimes it will stretch the musical atmosphere, sometimes it will seem totally Out. Those reactions you feel will be the determining factor in how applicable the mode/scale is in that context. Sometimes what works in one section of a song is diff from what works in another section. For ex., in the track you linked, if you matched Mixolydian directly to the chords, it would fit most conventionally over the 5 chord.

Cool, MF ( ) ! Per the Mixolydian mode, if ya consider it, It's just the major scale w/ a b7, hence it ubiquity in blues-based rock---it's a natural fit. Similarly the Aeolian, which is just the common minor scale. I could list them all in order but you can find that in many books or even at Wikipedia. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music) ]. They all can be considered & experimented with by playing a major scale first on the tonic (Ionian), then the 2 of the scale (Dorian---which might be the 2nd most used in rock since it's just a minor scale with b7). Go on down the line (major scale starting on the 3rd note, etc) & you have them all...although there are other more esoteric modes, as well, & if you wanted to you could create yer own. I suggest to pick a few sources, book or online & use those as yer reference base. It's good to look at more than one b/c sometimes terms an writer uses may be confusing or they may expound an idiosyncratic idea. When I started studying theory it took me a while to realize that classical terminology used (uses ?) a lotta terms that could be much simpler or even excised from use. For ex., when I read abt a "minor 7th" I thought of the chord when the writer meant only a b7 melodically or harmonically, not as part of a chord. Also, while gtr is where we are as musos, a kb is the easiest way to get a fast idea of the diffs between modes b/c they all are variations on the basic major scale & can be compared visually & theoretically by playing the white keys---much easier & more apparent than they look on the gtr. The downside is thinking that the theoretic understanding is the same as understanding their use. That use, if based solely on theory, will always be sorta mechanical, which is kinda OK as a student, but will not allow you to develop as freely as working via yer ear. There can be more uses of modes than conventionally applied. Here're some ideas you may find helpful: When studying any musical concept find practical examples of its use in songs & consider how it works in that context. Pick some tunes & investigate what modes they use. It can also be helpful to not try to do much at the same time. Play a buncha tunes that all involve 1 mode in a single session & at another time test-drive another mode. I think their distinctive qualities will sink in better that way. Then when you get some of the more usual modes under hand, branch off into the odder ones. Best of, Buddy !