Found 400 results
Found 400 results
There is only the major scale. It, however, has many alterations.
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?
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.
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.
Seriously, why does this matter? I have a different way of thinking about than you. And?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, but if I'm improvising, unconsciously so. When composing, I think more in terms of harmony or melody.
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, that's how I think of it.
I like vague parameters when it comes to music.
Yes...that's my point.
I think we've had this conversation before, and I don't recall it be satisfactory for either of us...
Maybe "think" is the wrong word. But my initial reaction is that I would play in C over that.
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".
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.
I just don't think in terms of scales. I think in keys. I think in terms of intervals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
A I II V progression would be a lydian scale?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
^ 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.
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?
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.
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
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.
I am really embarrassed to post but this is the one. I have trouble hearing what Blackmore is playing when Dio starts singing.
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.
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.
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 things...it'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.
I meant that there is no reson to limit yourself to 4-5 frets.
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.
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.
Shapes are very useful when you are learning.
You do realize your fretting hand is allowed to move, right?
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.
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.
Except, you know, it doesn't.
You can memorize scale intervals in such a way, but I don't see the need to bother.
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. .
I don't need to bother with learning the positions of this scale. .
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.
What I mean is that you know the scale all over the fretboard without needing to think which box you are playing in.
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.
You just memorize the intervals of a scale, and that's that, imho.
^ 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.
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.
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.
You just wouldn't treat them as box shapes.
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.
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?
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.
The fretboard shapes are the least important thing about any scale.
Short answer. You don't...assuming you know the fretboard well enough to find any note without having to think about it.
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.
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.
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.
G - Dm, just those 2 chords resolves to Dminor. Play just those chords. Which sounds like "home", out of just those 2 chords?
Granted, it still "hangs" a bit,
but Dminor is more "home" than G.
If we add either C or Am, it would resolve to either of those. This causes it to stop "hanging".
I already covered this, btw.
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.