Quote by MapOfYourHead
There is only the major scale. It, however, has many alterations.

Not true, but even if you want to think of it that way, you still need specific names for specific "alterations".

Quote by Eastwinn
how many unique scales are there if:

1. a scale is a set of intervals (western 12-tone) imposed on a root r

2. a scale must contain at least one element

3. a scale may not exceed one octave

4. a scale may not repeat an interval (taken from r)

5. for a scale S, S(r) indicates the set of notes derived from S with root r.

5. a scale S is congruent (therefore not unique) to a scale T if and only if for some r1, r2 and for every note a in S(r1) there exists a note b in T(r2) for which a = b.

so how many?

more than you'll ever use.
Quote by 20Tigers
Why do modes and keys have to be mutually exclusive? (I don't see them that way but it seems others do.)

My progression is
Dm Dm G G
Dm Dm F C

Resolves to Dm. The melody rarely if ever even touches the B natural, it never touches the Bb.

It's in the key of D minor and the G is a borrowed IV chord.

It's Dorian.

I accept either one or both of those descriptions as accurate.
If anyone reading this doesn't, then please explain the distinction as you understand it as precisely as possible. I really would like to know.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Seriously, why does this matter? I have a different way of thinking about than you. And?

How can you say yes, and then claim that you have a "a different way of thinking".

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

In the case of modulation, I tend to use a few "common" notes. So, using the example of moving from the key of F#minor to the key of Eminor...those two keys share several common tones. Depending upon how the chords underneath are, I would pick my notes and try to smoothly transition to the new key.

How specifically would you pick your notes?

You say you have a "different way of thinking", but your explanations are all very vague. "picking notes to try and smoothly transition" could mean alot of things. For instance you could achieve this by changing scales to accommodate the new key. Obviously you don't mean that, so you must be doing something else. No one will ever know if you don't explain it in a specific way.
Quote by Mole351
Hi all. I was wondering what the best way to practice intervals is. Not the best way to learn the finger positions, which I already know, but to be able to play them and identify them effortlessly on the spot very quickly...being able to know the fingerings and the sound instantaneously...particularly when improvising.

Any suggested methods or exercises?

well, if you know the finger positions, then you should be able to identify intervals on the spot.

knowing the sound takes time. I recommend fundamental exercises such as practicing intervals, scales, arpeggios and chords, and playing lots of music on your guitar.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

All I'm saying is, I don't think about scales. It really is that simple. There's no magic formula or reasoning behind it. It just is. It is easier for me to think about intervals than about scales. Yes, intervals naturally form a scale. But I don't think in terms of scales.

I don't see why it matters in the slightest, either.

you mean like it's easier for you to think R, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6 ,7 than it is to think R, 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7 ??

Quote by Sean0913
Alex, I understand...I don't really either. I can just as easily think in terms of just pitch collections that go well and fit against what I'm doing. Sometimes, a scale creates music because that's the next note our fingers hit, but that may not be the way I want it; I might use 4-5 notes and ignore the scale, but, those notes are a part of the scale.

I'm just thinking more in terms of melody, and the scale is internalized.



I'm curious as to what you mean by "pitch collection"? I remember that term from when I was studying atonal music in school. It specifically had to do with tone rows which If I remember correctly were used as a way of avoided using scales, in order to escape tonality. By using a 12 tone row or pitch collection, no single pitch would be heard as the tonic. It was a term used because the word "scale" no longer applied.

So is that what you mean by pitch collection, or are you using it to mean something different?
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Yes, but if I'm improvising, unconsciously so. When composing, I think more in terms of harmony or melody.

The reason I keep arguing with you is that you continue to downplay the relevance of scales, as if they have no bearing on harmony and melody, or intervals for that matter.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Of course. But I don't think there's ever a time where I go, "I want a major blues lick". I may go, "I want something similar to a major blues lick" sometimes, and it works out that way. But yeah.

well what's the difference? I mean your still using it as a reference point.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Well, that's how I think of it.

I like vague parameters when it comes to music.

lol, that's an oxymoron.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Yes...that's my point.

Ok so do use scales then?

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

I think we've had this conversation before, and I don't recall it be satisfactory for either of us...

I'm just trying to get where you're coming from. You say you think in sound, but Shirley scales must be part of what you're hearing.

Like for example I know if Im hearing a Major blues lick, VS Major pentatonic, or Major, or Lydian. My ability to aurally distinguish that allows me to utilize those colors.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Maybe "think" is the wrong word. But my initial reaction is that I would play in C over that.

Can you describe it in a more specific way? Just saying that you "play in C" is incredibly vague.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Hardly. But I am saying, I don't sit there and go, "The progression is major, I need to play a major scale like major pentatonic".

Well, sure, and when I talk I don't think "okay I need to use a noun here", but I still use nouns.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

I just play. I've been playing long enough where I can think in sound now, not in terms of scales.
I think, ultimately, the goal of a musician is to learn to play in sound.

That's great, but don't you think that scales are related to sound?

When I think in sound, scales are undeniably part of what I'm hearing. That's because they are a fundamental aspect of music, and I've listened to alot of music. So if it's not part of what you hear when you're thinking in sound, what is? and where did you take it in from?
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
lel. This.

I just don't think in terms of scales. I think in keys. I think in terms of intervals.

Like how would you "think" about playing over something like C - G - Am - F

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

I try to fit what I'm playing to the song, feel how I'm interacting with the other instruments (or backing track). And if I want to play a b3 against a major chord, I do -- provided it fits the song. If I want to play a b7 against a chord that doesn't contain a b7, I do! You have to do it tastefully, but I think I've reached the point where it's more intuitive for me to just think in terms of keys and intervals.

are you suggesting that the scale is irrelevant simply because you can play notes outside of it?

and how do you tastefully emphasis a b7 over a Major 7 chord? I'd love to hear an example of that. (and I don't mean as a chromatic passing tone)

The b3 makes sense because it'll give you a #9 sound.

Quote by eric_wearing
So I got to thinking and I notice that not many songs stick to just one scale. I know it may be obvious to the seasoned vet but I'm asking when is it that you decide to change scale.

1) When the key changes.

2) When I want a different color

such as Major pentatonic or Major blues over a Major chord, or
the Whole tone scale over an altered dominant. Or a Major Pentatonic a whole step above the root of a Major chord for a 7/ 9/13/#11 sound. Or connect chord tones with the chromatic scale.

Lots of possiblities here.
Quote by tyle12

I just had some questions regarding the diatonic chords within different scales.

If I have a i IV v progression. Does that mean the key would be in the key of i dorian? Because the 6th scale degree is a major sixth, which characterizes the dorian minor scale.

well, if you play the progression you should hear that it actually resolves on the chord you've labeled v. So its actually a iv VII i progression.

Quote by tyle12

This is following a conversation on here I saw about harmonic minor, when the i iv V7 progression someone brought up how it is harmonic minor progression.

it's just a minor progression. It's common practice to raise the 3rd of the v chord, for a stronger resolution to the tonic. The 3rd of the v chord is the 7th of the minor scale, and when raised it becomes the leading tone. It can be said to be derived from the harmonic minor scale, but that is a little bit misleading in that the note is generally used over the V chord only. So you're not likely to hear someone play over that entire progression with Harmonic minor. (notice though, that I didn't say you never will…. just that it's not common practice).

Quote by tyle12

Similar, I guess a a i IV V7 progression would make it melodic minor? But then I've heard melodic minor only acts as an ascending scale...

No, it doesn't work that way. Melodic minor is used as a way to avoid the huge leap you get when raising the 3rd of the v to the leading tone.

That progression could be described as minor, with the IV being a borrowed chord. It's not a typical progression though. Personally I wouldn't bother with analyzing things like that.

Try studying some existing songs/pieces. Learn to play them, and study them. No need to focus on hypothesized progressions when you can study the real deal. Especially at the beginner stage. Later on experimentation and creativity will be more appropriate.
Quote by tyle12

A I II V progression would be a lydian scale?


Na, that's IV V I (what you called V is actually I)
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Well, ok. My mistake.

Anyway, I was trying to emphasize the fact that it was non-diatonic. Honestly, I don't know that the details (such as the difference between borrowed chords and altered chords) would help TS much.

^ and for the most part it was a really good post. The difference between borrowed chords and secondary dominants IS important though. I believe knowing this will the help TS, as well as yourself.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
It acts as a secondary dominant. However, it's not "diatonic".

It is fairly common to use a II7 chord as a secondary dominant in the Jazz idiom.

Right, a secondary dominant is an altered chord, but not a borrowed chord .
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Well, a II chord (capitalized Roman numerals indicate it's major, btw) would be a substitution from another key. So, instead of using Em7b5 (which is "half-diminished" chord) as our normal ii* chord (lower case Roman numerals and the "*" symbol here denote it's a diminished chord), we take a more "friendly sounding" chord from another key -- E7. This is what that chord borrowing I was talking earlier is.


well, the E7 is not a borrowed chord, it's a secondary dominant. It's not really a matter of a friendlier sounding chord in this case, but rather a chord that creates a stronger resolution to the V, giving it greater emphasis.
Quote by MapOfYourHead
I write for the harmony that's there. I don't adjust. If it's major, I'll treat it as major and add addtional notes depending on the sound I want to create. It might be a b7, might be #4, might just be a standard M7, who knows. If you want a mixolydian sound, emphasize the b7, otherwise, don't.

when you add those notes, as opposed to adjust, do you play the 7 and the b7…. the 4 and the #4?

Quote by tyle12
In rock music, how do you guys adjust your lead parts for borrowed chords in a sequence. For example a simple I-bIII-IV progression. when the bIII chord comes around there are 2 non-scale tones now in the mix. Is it just a quick adjustment made to move the 3rd and 7th scale tones down a half step? Which i guess would take you from a major scale to blues/myxolydian scale?

For that particular progression Id probably play minor pentatonic or minor blues over the whole thing.

You could also trying using the Major scale, but then use the minor scale for the borrowed chord.
Quote by tyle12
So I'm sitting here pondering the definition of 'musical genius'. Unlike most academic fields, there isn't really a progressive line in which humans can go along and say that this particular music is superior than previous methods used. People still listen to songs from years, decades or even centuries ago with all sorts of methods and styles used.

If someone was to use scientific methods from hundreds of years ago to describe the phenomena of choice, there is a more clear line crossed in which we can say, "that method is outdated and no longer serves a purpose other than to teach upcoming people the progression of methods used. But such an outlook does not resonate as fully in the musical community excluding elitist personalities. Most people do not look back at old music and think it doesn't serve a purpose anymore. The point I'm trying to make here is that genius in most other academic fields are characterized by being able to progress into more accurate and 'correct' forms of understanding the given subject.

Now what constitutes a 'genius' musician? Most people you ask would probably give cliche answers such as bach, mozart and wager. Maybe even the likes of Hendrix and Vai, or Petrucci and Malmsteen. Various technical and writing styles/techniques used, all worthy of a sound argument.

(at this point I'd like to point out that I'm writing as I think because I wanted to share my thoughts and see what others had to say).

"A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of an unprecedented leap of insight. " Quoted

So how can you classify musicians this way? To me my absolute favourite musician is John Frusciante because of his style of playing, his introspective personality/lyrics and the emotions/feelings I get from listening to his music. Is he a genius? I would say so. Others might not. Perhaps they don't connect to him the way I do, perhaps they have not given him a fair chance at being enjoyed.

I can admire the technical skill someone like petrucci has but there is no feeling I get from watching to/listening to him other than, "wow he can shred".

Out of the classical composers, I do enjoy all 3 I have listed above but find most classical music crams too many notes in for me to fully enjoy it. Again, there is admiration for the understanding of theory and execution of musical relations, but not a connection which gives me an unspeakable bond with the music. An existential bond if you will.

After all, we are humans. We Think AND Feel...with emotion. We are not machines who simply take in data and process and classify it. Unfortunately many people think this way though, and reject the possibility of feeling something new that they preconceive to be unworthy or as some of my contemporaries classify as, "gay".

These are just my thoughts and I am not intentionally bashing anyone. Please share your thoughts as well.

I would also like to ask (because I am curious too) where is modern music in terms of pure academic progress. Who is leading the way?

I don't need for someone to be considered a "genius" in order for me to enjoy their music.

I think alot people get into this "my favorite artist is better than yours" thing. Id rather say **** all that and just enjoy the music. Mozart, Coltrane, Hendrix, Fruciante….. whatever. If you like it, listen to it… enjoy it.
Quote by alexriffs
How do you guys suggest that i put together a practice schedule to help me focus my playing and help me progress at a quicker rate?

I think having some structure would help me to progress as a player

Play alot, trust your own gut instincts, and don't over-think it.

Take lessons. A teacher can give you proper feedback and give personal guidance that you just can't get from random advice.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
^ That's because I was actually talking about scale degrees. I agree that the interval between two separate notes isn't usually that helpful.

I'm not that much of a guitarist. I consider myself more as a musician (I play multiple instruments). So that may be why my view of these things differs from you. I see these things applying to all instruments, not just guitar. I have played the trumpet for the longest time. I have also found my ways of doing things. I think in note names and scale degrees when I play the trumpet.

^ There must be some muscle memory involved there as well for the fingering and Embouchure, which is similar to a scale pattern on guitar.

To me, it's all important, all relevant. There is no benefit to thinking one relevant thing is more important than another.
Quote by hitman_47
Guys, a quick question, how would you name this chord: A C G F?

I'm thinking it's an Am7 with the F as a tension and no 5th.

Would this make it a minor 7 flat 13 or just a minor 7 add 13?

What's the context (other chords in the progression), and how are you voicing it (tab)?

as is, I'd venture to guess it's an Fadd9.
Quote by MaggaraMarine

As I said "If you know scales, you know the fingerings thus you know the shapes. You can't know scales on guitar without knowing the fingerings. And the fingerings always belong to some shape (and that should be pretty obvious)."

And yeah, I also said in my post "Maybe the "hate" towards box shapes comes from the way people learn them."

So I agree with you.

Quote by DarkF1ame777
hey guys i hope you are having a wonderful day, i was just asking if you more experienced players could give me tips or suggestions on how to make riffs? I have created a few intros but i never finish them songs usually its a soft intro that i make single picking but i just struggle on coming up with ideas for making a heavy riff any tips? thanks

If you have trouble coming up with riffs, you most likely lack experience playing riffs.

Learn a bunch of songs that feature riffs. Get really good at playing those songs (by memory/ear), then come to writing your own.
Quote by tyle12
Ofcourse pleasing sound is the main objective. But I could also ask "why does it sound better when I play B after E instead of C? Obviously it sounds better, its because the notes in the B resolve to the E as a V chord does. I'm looking for a genuine theoretical answer.

Play what sounds right to you. Don't over think it.
Quote by sundar334
I am really embarrassed to post but this is the one. I have trouble hearing what Blackmore is playing when Dio starts singing.

and it only happens to for classic rock?????

btw I can hear the guitar under the vocals NP.

Maybe it's just a matter of experience. It's hard to pick things out at 1st. The more you do it though, the better you'll get it.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
If you know scales, you know the fingerings thus you know the shapes. You can't know scales on guitar without knowing the fingerings. And the fingerings always belong to some shape (and that should be pretty obvious).

When it comes to guitar playing, fingerings are of course important. When it comes to music, intervals are important. You don't need to think "in intervals" just like you don't need to think "in shapes" (because when you are really good, you can just play without needing to think). I would say if you want to play by ear, knowing intervals helps a lot, regardless of whether you know or don't know the scale shapes. If you just play one note and know the intervals really well (by ear and of course can play them on guitar), you can play the next note you hear. So saying that intervals aren't important at all is not true. When it comes to music (not guitar playing), they are far more important than guitar scale shapes.

Maybe the "hate" towards box shapes comes from the way people learn them. Many people just play them up and down with metronome - that's a really "unmusical" way of learning them. But you can also learn all of them just by playing music. You'll see how all different guitarists use scales.

One thing that the basic box shapes don't really teach is horizontal playing.

The thing is, it's all intertwined. If you learn the intervals and apply them to an instrument, you get shapes. There is no benefit or advantage to ignoring this fact.

Quote by MaggaraMarine

Many people just play them up and down with metronome - that's a really "unmusical" way of learning them..

True, but that's not the fault of the box shapes, it comes from guitar magazine columns, and videos by "gurus" like Paul Gilbert and other shredders where they demonstrate how to be as awesome as them by playing up and down a scale really fast.

^ this is where the concept of "scale patterns up and down really fast" comes from. Guitarists have been sold this idea, and sadly, it's become part of the culture. What it comes down to is a more money for Mike Varney and the Shrapnel Brigade.

Quote by MaggaraMarine

But you can also learn all of them just by playing music. You'll see how all different guitarists use scales.

well you still have to learn them in the 1st place to recognize them in music.

Quote by MaggaraMarine

One thing that the basic box shapes don't really teach is horizontal playing.

You have to teach that to yourself by learning to connect them. Watch those videos. They connect the shapes all over the place. It's still lame, but they do.
Quote by Sean0913
I'm not sure the debate here.

The intervals are in a fixed position, guys.

Whether you play A Minor Pent as 58 57 57 57 58 58...

Or as R b3 4 5 b7 from A

Or as A C D E G

It doesn't matter. You're likely going to play the same notes with the fingers...whether you know them as grids, tabs, intervals, or the grand almighty cosmic awareness of all's the same notes, at the same place.

What's the difficulty with a beginner using any of those things? I'll answer that for you, since it's seemed to pass by unnoticed.

None. They are beginners, not experts, not professionals, and they will not die from learning shapes. They will not be terminally prevented from understanding theory at a later date when its personally meaningful and relevant for them to learn it.

I guarantee you that none of you started out with the enlightenment that you presently operate under. Whether you do chord tone soloing or carpet bomb your widdle notes over a power chord, you evolve from experience. Everyone wants to be pro in a day, and we need to quit making them think that it's possible. It's not. It takes dedication, commitment and lots and lots of time, combined with making right decisions, or learning hard lessons of what works and what doesn't, through making lots of bad ones.

/soapbox rant




I only want to add, and I'm not trying to argue with you, but I hear alot of people say they are for beginners, and I see it differently. They are simply where the notes of a particular scale are on the fretboard. A beginner playing minor pentatonic VS a professional playing minor pentatonic = same thing in regards to notes/patterns/positions.
Quote by cjohnson122989
I meant that there is no reson to limit yourself to 4-5 frets.

Are you suggesting that knowing a pattern in a position limits you from playing outside of that position?

I don't get this "limit" concept in regards to shapes.
Quote by 20Tigers
It seems to me like he agrees with you.

-I'm just bummed my post got lost at the end of the last page. oh well.

I might have misread him, but I took it the other way.

I really think this whole shapes stigma is silly.

Quote by 20Tigers
You don't bother with Fret X and Fret Y? So how do you find the interval on the guitar without knowing where to find it in relation to Fret X and Fret Y?

Whatever you do if you play a scale you will be playing notes, intervals, and shapes.

It seems everyone here recognizes that the notes of a given scale form shapes or patterns on the fretboard.

Some people, it would seem, are arguing that the recognition of these patterns, and their use as a learning aid is somehow harmful to a guitarists learning.

-That just seems completely absurd.

+ 1
Quote by cjohnson122989
Shapes are very useful when you are learning.

What do you mean?

Quote by cjohnson122989

You do realize your fretting hand is allowed to move, right?

You mean like when you change position?

never thought of that

Are you suggesting that not knowing the patterns gives you an advantage because you get stuck in them and they won't allow you to change position or something? Just trying to figure out how what you said related to quote you were replying to.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
The difference is, I don't bother with fret X and fret Y. I bother with intervals.

If you want to discuss this further, then you can PM me.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what do you do when fret X and fret Y are part of the scale.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
This is why I said arguing this is useless. Fact is, we will never convince each other.

Now, stop trying to "win the argument" and accept that people do things in a way other than the way you do things. And grow the hell up while you're at it.

I'm not trying to win anything, and I don't think you're really doing anything different.

Tell me this.

If I play the A Major scale between the 4th and 7th frets on the guitar, knowing the pattern, knowing the notes and intervals...... and you play the A Major scale in the same place, what would be the difference. What advantage would you have by ignoring the shape the scale makes in that position?
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Except, you know, it doesn't.

It does, that's why I said it.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

You can memorize scale intervals in such a way, but I don't see the need to bother.

You mean a way in which you know where they are on your instrument?
yes you can.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

If I know a scale's intervals are: 1, b3, 5, b6, 7, & b7; then I can just pick a tonic and find the notes that satisfy the other intervals. .

In a position on your guitar. and what scale is that?

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

I don't need to bother with learning the positions of this scale. .

you are, but for some reason, you're just not admitting it to yourself.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

If you disagree with my method, whatever. You play how you want to play, and I'll play how I want to play. We both can be happy with our own ways.

that's not a method. it's just avoiding the truth.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
What I mean is that you know the scale all over the fretboard without needing to think which box you are playing in.

I just don't get why you would have a problem with knowing which pattern the scale makes in the position you are in.

Quote by MaggaraMarine
Some people just learn a bunch of scale shapes but they can't really use the notes in them. They don't learn them in context.

People do that with practically every aspect of playing guitar, not just scales.

It's not the fault of the information, but rather the approach of the person.

and honestly I blame it all on the tidbit approach. People take in tidbits and 1 liners, and then fill in the gaps with their own assumptions.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
You just memorize the intervals of a scale, and that's that, imho.

^ = memorizing scale patterns in positions when you apply it to a guitar.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
^ I don't avoid calling them "box shapes". I just find it hard to connect the different boxes - I mean, you kind of look at them as separate boxes. That's what I mean by getting stuck. Playing outside of one box gets hard. And that's what seeing a scale as one big shape means - you see how everything is connected. You don't treat the box shapes any more as separate boxes.

And I kind of know what you mean. I think we are kind of talking about the same thing but use different terms.

How can it be hard to connect the boxes? I mean that's what the "one big shape" IS.

and your hand doesn't span the entire fretboard, so you will always be playing in one "box" or another. That's what makes them so handy.

Also playing outside of something is easy, when you know the boundaries. I mean pick 2 notes in a scale. Now connect them chromatically, by playing the notes in between. pretty easy.
Altering notes is easy as well. You know where the 5th is? well it's not the hard to find the b5 or #5 is it?

If you really think "shapes are bad", Try applying your idea to chords. Is a D chord really 1 big shape all over the neck, or do you actually have to chose a particular place/position to play it? When you do, are you stuck in that chord, or are you free to move around to another version of it, or another chord all together?

Or does this "shapes are bad" thing only apply to scales?

IMO there is a real problem with the shapes stigma. It comes from people who learned them improperly in the 1st place. They go online and authoritatively tell people not to learn them (cause they're experts now). It then gets passed around like the flu.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
Yes, you would be playing in the same position or box shape or whatever you want to call it. But you don't need to treat it as one. Of course box shapes exist. But many guitarists get stuck with them. There are different ways of thinking.

so you use them, but you avoid calling them "box shapes" cause you heard someone say that "box shapes are bad mkaay" ??

I don't understand this "getting stuck" business. I mean if you know the notes in a scale, why couldn't play in between those notes? Are the shapes like "no dude, can't play that note it's outside of me" ?

Quote by MaggaraMarine

If you already knew all the notes by heart on the fretboard, there would be no use for learning any box shapes because you would already (kind of) know them.

I don't see how. Notes are just notes. Scales are specific groupings of notes, based on a formula.

Quote by MaggaraMarine

You just wouldn't treat them as box shapes.

What does that mean? how is one supposed to treat box shapes?

Quote by MaggaraMarine

I have heard John Petrucci say that after he had learned the scale well enough, it became one big shape that was all over the fretboard rather than many box shapes.

That sounds cool, especially coming from a famous musician, but the truth is that "one big shape" is a combination of all of the positions. Your hand can only stretch so far. you can't play that one big shape without moving your hand around….. which is actually moving between various positions/patterns.
Quote by alexriffs
Should i learn a scale in every key before moving onto a different mode?
For example i have learnt all positions of the minor pentatonic in A should i now learn them in the other keys or should i learn a different scale like the Dorian?

I would say focus on music for awhile. Learn a bunch of solos(and songs) that use the minor pentatonic scale. (since you know that one)
Quote by MaggaraMarine

Though if you know where every note is on the fretboard and can play any note instantly, you don't need any box shapes. But that requires a lot more than just knowing the note names.

I disagree, but maybe you could explain in detail how you would go about playing the C#minor blues scale between the 9th and 12th frets without playing through what people refer to as a "box shape".
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr

The fretboard shapes are the least important thing about any scale.

We'll, they are what they are. They are important/helpful for applying the scales to the guitar, but it's certainly possible to learn them in an inappropriate way, and guitarists often do. (such as learning a bunch of random shapes without any knowledge of what they represent).

Learn them properly, and they will only help you.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Short answer. You don't...assuming you know the fretboard well enough to find any note without having to think about it.

Knowing the notes on the entire fretboard does NOT = you knowing the scales across the entire fretboard. For that you have to understand scale formulas, and when you apply those scale formulas to the notes on the neck and you get …………….. SCALE PATTERNS!!!!!!
When you apply those scale formulas in a particular area, comfortably reachable by the hand, you get…….. SCALE PATTERNS in POSITIONS.

wow! Very useful indeed!
Quote by fingrpikingood
The major scale and all the relative modes are one same giant pattern that spans the whole of the fretboard. It's tough for our feeble little minds to assimilate that whole entire pattern in one chunk. So, we break it down into pieces. Into sections.

It's also beyond the range of what our feeble little hands can reach. (or even big hands)

Quote by AlanHB
Re: Progression that goes G - Dm - C - G

Arguably yes through some clever voicings and melody.

However it is far more likely that it resolves to the C as it features more prominently in this chord progression than Am.

I was talking about G - Dm as was argued about, but to your point….. If something resolves to C, then it resolves to Am as well. Clever voicings are unnecessary.

In the progression G - Dm - C - G I actually feel it resolves nicely to G.

and really the G - Dm vamp could as well

I know you'll disagree with that, and that's fine. But let me ask you this. What key do you consider Old Man, by Neil Young to be in?

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

But if we're limited to ONLY 2 chords, one of those 2 is our key. Unless, of course, we're going to treat it as modal vamp -- which might be ok.

Originally I said that It doesn't resolve to either, but after playing around with it for a few minutes, I take that back. I would say that G - Dm is ambiguous.

it could be I - v in G (some people might call this Mixolydian and thats okay with me)

it could be IV - i in dm

it could be V - ii in C

it could be VII - iv in Am

and it was initially presented as a modal vamp, but you chose to beat up on the guy.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
G - Dm, just those 2 chords resolves to Dminor. Play just those chords. Which sounds like "home", out of just those 2 chords?


Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Granted, it still "hangs" a bit,

well, that ought to tell you something. does it stop "hanging" if you move on to C or Am?

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

but Dminor is more "home" than G.

It either resolves, or it doesn't.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

If we add either C or Am, it would resolve to either of those. This causes it to stop "hanging".

well, yeah that's what a resolution does.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax

I already covered this, btw.

Doesn't make it right. and you're telling someone else that they need to go back and learn the fundamentals?

Quote by MaggaraMarine
Actually, Foo Fighters - Learn to Fly is B-F#m-E and it feels like it's in B major rather than E major. IMO it sounds more like I-v-IV than V-ii-I.

Same with Wicked Game. It's Bm-A-E and sounds more like i-(b)VII-IV than ii-I-V to me.

So adding the E major chord to B-F#m doesn't necessarily make it resolve to E major. Same with adding A major chord in between Bm and E. It just doesn't sound resolved. I hear both songs resolving to B.

^ I agree with this

context matters.