d halfnote

Re: Rivers of Nehil Do all those cats sorta look like the same guy? I'll have to look into that...I like conceptualists [*]. Well-recorded but only the sax solo really resonated w/me...Oh now the bass solo [5:08 + ] is giving me something to think abt & the drummist was clever throughout. I also liked the little shiver-me-timbers ["shiver-me-timbres" ?] dance the vocalist did abt 6:15 in apparent response to the drum roll there [*]. Thanks for showing us something new (at least to me), Hugh ! ------------------------------------- BTW & FWIW, Zappa's Inca Rds showed up (at least for me---YT picking material based on viewers's habits) as a follow up. Could almost beb an extension of the "Owls" track ! [& the close-ups of FZ's fingers during his solo are particularly helpful ] [video:youtube]

MuFu, I meant no criticism nor intended faulting of yer ability to understand...only that I wondered if you might be pushing to hard in a race to reach yer goal & not savoring the territory along the way. I think the enjoyment of music's the main thing.

NO ! At risk of seeming pedantic, I recall that being my 1st post to this thread, when you were asking which mode might be most common. That's not important in itself but I wonder if it indicates that yer too concerned abt acquiring info quickly & may be overloading yer "Mental In-Box" without taking time to investigate the subject by playing though & get a real feel for the way various scales/modes sound in various contexts. That's not a criticism, MF, just a question. When I was younger I was quite in a hurry to know things & it takes a while, perhaps, to realize that these things do take some time to become familiar. We're never done with learning these things b/c as long as we play there will be nuances that we catch or develop. Watch out for the time when you think you've nothing to learn---that's not a good sign ! Cool---but remember that as you play parts in context you may add or leave out notes. You aren't restricted to only playing the defining notes of scales/modes. You can mix in other notes or even mix in diff modes...& you do not need to be aware of or have an intellectual justification for that. It just need to be how you want things to sound. Dig ? Hey, pal, work at yer own pace. This is a lifelong exercise in development. Cut yerself a big slice of slack & enjoy playing music. Don't think ya "hafta-hafta-hafta"---OK ?

I see... I'll have to take some time & look at the clips & charts before I find examples of what yer citing as differences. Do you see what I'm pointing out, though, abt fingerings are only there as guidelines for study---not as yer only options ?

[this was typed in the same time frame that encompassed the immediately preceding posts from MuFu] If I understand correctly, yer looking for fingerings ("shapes"). Is that correct ? In that regard you could play, as I believe has been stated already, any scale/mode starting on any note anywhere along the fretboard. The relevant factors being... --to practice exercises for dexterity; --b/c some position offers comfortable fingering for the music yer gonna play in in a particular situation. If I'm addressing the Q properly, I can't stress this enough: the whole point of study & practice is to be prepared for playing what you want as you develop as a player. The only real rules are what works to achieve the musical effects you want to invoke &, depending on style/genre/artistic goals, those desired results are up to what you intend to achieve in that context...which may be diff from what you intend in another context. We've heard some of yer playing, so we know yer skilled. You want to learn more & that's great; no one should be complacent & ongoing development is a goal more should pursue ... but I wonder if, for whatever reason, you might feel unnecessarily intimidated by what you think you don't know. Remember: the very thing that will make you distinctive as a musician is what you do that's different.

& ON THE DAY AFTER... Lennon was a notoious magpie but IO never knew he'd swiped that tune...or even that said tune existed. When I looked it up it seemed a bit deep in the folk canon for John to be familiar w/ but then look what I found from, YIKES, 1969 just when Lennon was bringing his "So This Is XMas" game out ! [video:youtube]

Updating an earlier entry [video:youtube]

I hope Mu Fu sees the Jan GP. There's a multi-page analysis of how the Mixolydian mode's been used in abt 20 diff pop tunes. There's also a particularly striking idea from Carol Kaye (a young jazz guitarist before she hit the studio scene as a bassist. The study of chords & arpeggios is more vital than that of scales. Point being, I think, that while melodic lines are the basis of songs, the harmonic/chordal structure of music is an easier, more direct way to understand contextually useful variations than the use of scales alone.

Great bg vox by The Chipmonkettes ! D'ya think that track was accelerated in the box ? Not the vox pitch but the tempo... :idk

The Beatles, rather apparently after their meeting w/The Dyl [video:youtube] The Dyl wins by living longer [video:youtube] CB tells us the Rastafarian version [video:youtube] Transitional R&B track from Butterbeans & Susie [video:youtube] Albert Nelson (King) 'splains it his way [video:youtube] On a somewhat less humorous note but knee deep [video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HzhOcj4L-s Oh yeah, it's a gtr forum so here's a 2-fer to catch up John Lee early [video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjhRc8fQKHM John Lee late [video:youtube] A, uh, KInky Kristmas (Dave does some trix ) [video:youtube] Dig Christmas at the John Scofield digs [video:youtube] The Real Derek knocks over some dominoes [video:youtube] Another John & some kids from Harlem [video:youtube] All The King Of Rock'N'Roll Wanted Was A Rock'N'Roll 'Lectric Geetar [video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCXx1Z8srYY Who's got an encore ?

@ 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.