RE: Jazz Guitar Soloing Concepts: A Pentatonic Modal Approach To Improvisation
Carl
I bought it and I was wondering what other people's reactions to it were.
ScotGormley
> Has anyone else delved into this book by Dr. Ronald Lemos?
>
> I bought it and I was wondering what other people's reactions to it were.
I don't have the book but have seen some excerpts. The approach is not
new, but I like the way he codified and explained it.
Related:
I'd love to see an improv. book developed collaboratively by the
contributors to this news group. How about "The Harmonic Engineers:
Techniques and Approches by RMMJG" for a working title? ;-)
Carl
same ones you saw) was excellent; well thought out and easy to understand.
I am troubled by the book because it, as opposed to the excerpts, focuses on
teaching through modes, a teaching technique I personally don't subscribe
to.
Before I get slammed for stupidity, I realize the title says "A Modal
Approach" in it, but I thought, based on the examples of his work that I've
seen, that the material would be presented more in the way of which minor
pentatonic scale fits best over which major, minor, or dominant chord,
rather than actually incorporating all the modal terminology which makes it
seem more daunting, as if there are dozens of new scales to learn rather
than just 5 basic patterns.
Needless to say, I'm going to read and re-read the book for awhile to see if
I can catch onto the part where Dr. Lemos claims that he's made improvising
easier before I give up on it and it ends up next to the Doug Munro book
which, also very well-written, relies on the "Mode" dogma, and which I found
more daunting than encouraging.
rlemos...@gmail.com
Hello Carl,
First, I would like to thank you so very much for taking a chance on
my book. If it ends up on your bookshelf, I will have failed miserably
in what I am trying to accomplish--providing additional tools that
will work for you. Before you give up on the book, please try it on
specific songs--especially ones you are already playing or want to
play. For example, my YouTube video on the Dorian Pentatonic Scale
(Chapter 3) shows how to use Mode I on the verses to "Misty".
http://www.youtube.com/rlemos#p/u/7/8m8bDKgVv0w
All the pentatonic scales in the book are shown in 5 positions (boxes)
that I label as Modes depending on which degree of the scale the
position starts in on the 6th string. In the video above, the Bb
Dorian Pentatonic Scale Mode I starts on the 6th string, sixth fret--
the Bb note. Since this is the root of the scale, I label it as Mode
I. If you go up 2 frets you will be at the C note (6th string, 8th
fret). I label this as Mode II since the C note is the 2nd of Bb
Pentatonic Scale. Check out Appendix C (p. 243) for more details on
this labeling system.
However, the important point is whether or not this system works for
you. If you are playing Misty (in Eb) and you come to the chord change
Bbm7-Eb7 in Measure 2, do you like the sound of the Bb Dorian
Penatonic Scale Mode I (starting on the 6th string, 6th fret)? Now try
Mode II (not on the video) which starts at the 8th fret, 6th string
(the note is C which is step 2 of the Bb Dorian Pentatonic Scale,
therefore I call it Mode II). Once again, there are 5 "boxes" provided
for each scale in the book. You don't need to learn all of them. Pick
and choose the ones that work best for you.
Please email me directly (rle...@calstatela.edu) for any specific
questions. The "trick" is to actually try these scales on various
songs and chord progressions. BTW: The latest issue of Just Jazz
Guitar (Feb 2010) has Part 1 of an article based on the book (Chapter
19) covering soloing over diminished chords (Part 2 will be in May
2010) issue. I provide new examples along with corresponding mp3
files.
Thank you once again for your interest. I will look forward to hearing
from you.
Ron
Carl
Thank you for your reply here on the n.g. I actually was going to email you
directly regarding this concern of mine but I thought I'd ask others what
they thought before I did.
I appreciate the book. I think it is very well laid out and very well
written and I think the concept of using just the pentatonic scales to avoid
the "avoid" notes is excellent and is what attracted me to the material.
I just wish there was less "labeling" in the book.
I am going to persist in reading through your book until I can get my
thinking past the "mode" concept which seems to block me and I do understand
your explanation because I study under another artist who teaches via a
similar underlying concept except that he uses all the notes of the scale,
not just the pentatonics.
I have looked at your Misty video, the summarization of your technique which
appears online (with a little googling), your approach to Giant Steps, and
the article in Just Jazz Magazine which I subscribe to. I will review that
article for sure and I will review the Misty video as well.
I will be in touch and thank you again for the time you've taken here.
Bill Williams
would give me a few neat ideas for certain playing situations but
actually it is more ambitious than that and represents a well-thought-
out, guitar specific and organized system for approaching
improvisation.
I’ve already got the Munro book on my bookshelf too and also have the
Bergonzi and Khan pentatonic books. The latter two are each excellent
in their own right in their approach to pentatonics, of course, but I
never got too far with internalizing the additional pentatonic scales
they recommend (due to lack of practicing time/discipline on my part,
no doubt). But with the Lemos system I have happily absorbed 6 new
pentatonic scales into my repertoire because they sound good when I
use them and because they are presented as an extension of the 2 notes/
string simple rock pentatonics most of us started out with, the
approach seems quite intuitive and helps free the old creative
juices.
I wouldn’t let the modal aspect put you off, Carl - I pretty much
abandoned the scale/mode approach to improvising a long time ago but
in this book it’s used more as a way of systematizing the note
possibilities and you are less likely to end up sounding boring going
up and down scales – pentatonics are nearer to arpeggios than scales,
I guess.
I suspect really advanced players might perhaps get less mileage out
of this approach as they would already have good solutions under their
fingers for most harmonic contexts, but for many others, especially if
you come from a rock/country background, its well worth checking out.
Bill
Tim McNamara
"Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
There being 5 basic fingering patterns is also true of the major scale
and the minor scales. I hadn't thought of it but of course that would
be true of the pentatonic scales (which I almost never think to use, the
major scale being pretty easy to operate).
--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
Carl
"Bill Williams" <bwbillwi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:baf65f35-faed-4203...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Bill
>
>
Thanks for this. I will continue to try to work with it. It is hard to shrug
off a 2-note per string approach to anything, right? :-)
I re-watched Ron's video of Misty. I think what I liked in the Misty lesson
is something which is muddied in the book, and that is that Ron begins the
Misty lesson by showing you how you can apply only Mode I patterns to all
the changes in Misty. I like that. I don't think the book emphasizes that,
but I think that's a clear place to begin, at least for soemone like me who
doesn't like memorizing a bunch of scales, patterns, or otherwise.
To be fair, I only have the book for 2 days and have had little time to
really assess it and its teaching style. I will pursue it.
Carl
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-4586B9....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
basic major scales, you don't have to learn the minor scales because, with
some exception, they share the same fingering patterns. A C major scale is
the same as an A minor scale if you disregard distinctions like harmonic
minor vs melodic minor issues for the moment.
It is much easier for me if, for example, I'm playing in a key that has one
sharp in it, to think of it as a G major pattern. If I come to an Am7 chord
in that set, it is easier for me to think that I just have to play the G
major scale with some thought to the chord tones in the Am7 chord than it is
to say to myself, "Ah, now I have to switch from the G Ionian scale to the A
Dorian scale". I find that to be over the top with just too much analysis. I
understand it, but I don't want to have to think that way. Put that way, it
seems as if I had to learn and memorize two different scales instead of just
the one that it really is.
Now toss in a D7 chord and instead of thinking, "stay in the G major scale
with some attention to the chord tones of D7 and hey, whatever I play, I
just need to remember there's only ONE sharp...", in the modal system, I now
have to think, "I need to go from the G Ionian scale to the A Dorian scale
to the D Mixylodian scale". Aw gee, I have to learn three different scales
now, where before I thought it was just one...
It's just seems to add layers that seem unnecessary to me. Of course, I'm
just a student of guitar and little more, but these are the things I've
learned over the years, regarding my style of learning, about the way I
would teach the guitar to someone if I was teaching guitar.
Sorry if I'm belaboring this. Just posting and thinking, thinking and
posting...
drthoma...@gmail.com
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timmcn-4586B9....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If a player learns to hear how all twelve notes sound against any
chord, then he never has to think about scales ever again. Unless he
wants to.
Tim Sprout
>>>>>> Has anyone else delved into this book by Dr. Ronald Lemos?
>>>>>> I bought it and I was wondering what other people's reactions to
>>>>>> it were.
>>>>> I don't have the book but have seen some excerpts. The approach is
>>>>> not new, but I like the way he codified and explained it.
>>>>> Related: I'd love to see an improv. book developed collaboratively
>>>>> by the contributors to this news group. How about "The Harmonic
>>>>> Engineers: Techniques and Approches by RMMJG" for a working title?
>>>>> ;-)
>>>> I bought it because I thought the material from the excerpts
>>>> (probably the same ones you saw) was excellent; well thought out and
>>>> easy to understand.
>>>> I am troubled by the book because it, as opposed to the excerpts,
>>>> focuses on teaching through modes, a teaching technique I personally
>>>> don't subscribe to.
>>>> Before I get slammed for stupidity, I realize the title says "A Modal
>>>> Approach" in it, but I thought, based on the examples of his work
>>>> that I've seen, that the material would be presented more in the way
>>>> of which minor pentatonic scale fits best over which major, minor, or
>>>> dominant chord, rather than actually incorporating all the modal
>>>> terminology which makes it seem more daunting, as if there are dozens
>>>> of new scales to learn rather than just 5 basic patterns.
>>
>
> tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
>
> If a player learns to hear how all twelve notes sound against any
> chord, then he never has to think about scales ever again. Unless he
> wants to.
>
Explain this. Say, over an Am7 chord, wouldn't a player have to think of
scales at least in the sense of knowing the tonal context of the
cadence, i.e., a C major scale or G major scale? Or is this a totally
chord based approach,like a 12 note arrpeggio for all chords with the
ear deciding what notes not to play, the ear deciding the tonal context?
-Tim Sprout
rpjazzguitar
He could read and he could improvise. No clams at all. But, he
couldn't tell you the notes in a Cmajor triad.
He said that when he was learning, all improv was taught entirely by
ear -- no chord theory at all. He said that everybody he knew learned
and played like that.
He knew the entire Great American Songbook.
His lack of chord knowledge became obvious when we played originals or
modern tunes he'd never heard. He could see where the chords changed
from the chart, so he'd stay silent until he could hear the next
chord. Then he could play on it. Sounded a little odd. Once he knew
the tune and could anticipate the changes he'd play across them.
He was an inside player, probably more due to his era than his
approach.
That group didn't play a lot of stuff with really complex harmony, but
I bet he could have handled it, once he was familiar with the
changes.
Rick
rlemos...@gmail.com
>
> > If a player learns to hear how all twelve notes sound against any
> > chord, then he never has to think about scales ever again. Unless he
> > wants to.
>
> Explain this. Say, over an Am7 chord, wouldn't a player have to think of
> scales at least in the sense of knowing the tonal context of the
> cadence, i.e., a C major scale or G major scale? Or is this a totally
> chord based approach,like a 12 note arrpeggio for all chords with the
> ear deciding what notes not to play, the ear deciding the tonal context?
>
> -Tim Sprout
Hello Tim S. Please allow me to jump in here. You raise a very
important point. There are many approaches to improvisation ranging
from highly theoretical to "just feel/hear it". All of them are valid
and have merit. My approach is based on using pentatonic scales for
any chord, chord progression or song you would ever encounter. This is
a "system" and therefore open to much criticism by jazz theorists.
However, it will work and will complement/augment any style or level
of development. With this "system", you don't have to worry about
"avoid" notes. You can concentrate on the song. In this system, the
context of the chord is important. The pentatonic scale for an Am7 in
the key center of G (A Dorian Pentatonic Scale) is different from the
pentatonic scale for Am7 in the key center of F (A Phrygian Pentatonic
Scale). These labels are only necessary to describe the system. When
you play, you do not think of the names or labels. For example, when
you play the basic Am pentatonic scale at the the 5th fret, you are
not thinking "OK, now I'm going to use the A Minor Pentatonic Scale
Mode I". You just play it because you know it is going to fit. That is
precisely how this system works. Please feel free to contact me if I
can provide additional details or information. Thank you for your
interest. Ron
drthoma...@gmail.com
>
> > If a player learns to hear how all twelve notes sound against any
> > chord, then he never has to think about scales ever again. Unless he
> > wants to.
>
> Explain this. Say, over an Am7 chord, wouldn't a player have to think of
> scales at least in the sense of knowing the tonal context of the
> cadence, i.e., a C major scale or G major scale? Or is this a totally
> chord based approach,like a 12 note arrpeggio for all chords with the
> ear deciding what notes not to play, the ear deciding the tonal context?
Those are not mutually exclusive propositions. Hearing all 12 notes
against a given chord, and hearing how the chord fits into the song's
harmony, are two separate skills.
You don't need scales to accomplish either skill. In fact, once you
have such skill, the scales become superfluous.
Scales and arpeggios can work for some people as training wheels to
learn to hear subsets of the chromatic scale in a given situation.
However, you can gain the same skills without scales, by copping licks
and solos from good players. It's a better way to learn, because it
builds ear training more rigorously as well as contributing to your
vocabulary directly from the jazz language instead of the jazz
grammar.
I don't mean this as a critique of the book in question. I think it's
great to learn theory and to use theory to build your ear and
vocabulary.
I do disagree with the author's marketing claims. Learning pentatonics
is not a shortcut to sounding like a jazz player, because you're only
getting a small and fairly insignificant part of the jazz language
down when you study these pents. It's a good thing to do, but it's no
substitute for learning licks and solos from the greats.
I say this from experience, as someone who started off with a lot of
book learning, and only later developed an ear and a vocabulary. I did
it backwards, and I don't recommend it. I spent a lot of time paring
all the scaleisms out of my vocabulary.
I can hear in a second a guitar player who bases his solos off of
chord/scale theory, because they often don't sound authentic to me.
Tim McNamara
"Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
You're talking about playing in tonal centers rather than using
chord-scale theory. This is also how I was taught to play years and
years ago, so it's how I think. Jimmy Bruno teaches that way of
thinking at his Guitar Institute web site, too, stating that this is how
most professional musicians approach it.
I never think in terms of modes. The complications you mention are, I
think, one of the reasons that modal jazz tended to have very sparse
chord structures (e.g., "Little Sunflower," one of my favorite modal
tunes).
However, every system has limits and playing by tonal center does too.
Minor scales offer a load of inflections and tonalities beyond the major
scale. I have not come close to mastering those.
Tim McNamara
Tim Sprout <tm...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
> > tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
> >
> > If a player learns to hear how all twelve notes sound against any
> > chord, then he never has to think about scales ever again. Unless
> > he wants to.
>
>
> Explain this.
If you know how each of the 12 tones will sound against each chord, you
can select notes by desired sound rather than by scale, tonal center or
mode. It's like selecting a particular red to go on a blue background.
In some of his instructional material, Gene Bertoncini has talked about
going through all the chord forms and seeing how each of the 12 tones
sounds sounds against it and how it functions.
> Say, over an Am7 chord, wouldn't a player have to think of
> scales at least in the sense of knowing the tonal context of the
> cadence, i.e., a C major scale or G major scale? Or is this a totally
> chord based approach,like a 12 note arrpeggio for all chords with the
> ear deciding what notes not to play, the ear deciding the tonal context?
Amin7 can serve as the i, ii, iii or vi chord so the tonal center can be
A minor, G major, F major or C major. Playing each of those scales will
produce a different tonality (I am partial to the sound of minor chords
as the iii chord) although A natural minor and C major will sound very
similar.
One could argue that this is a form of using modes sort of backasswards.
I don't think of it as modes but instead think of it as playing in the
tonal center of the moment.
Carl
"systems" I've tried, playing in "tonal centers" has had the largest
practical impact upon my ability to improvise. I am a fan (and a student) of
the JBGI system. It was the first one which made me go "Aha! I get that!".
Of course all "systems" have their limitations and perhaps their drawbacks.
But, for me, the "tonal center" system, being uncluttered by semantics and
terminology, allowed me to think more about the music being played than the
system being learned and gave me the greatest success in the shortest amount
of time.
Btw, in considering your reference to "minor scales", Mr. Bruno begins his
treatment of that by asking you to consider the most basic of questions- to
paraphrase: "When moving from a major chord to a minor chord, what's
different, or what has changed?".
In general, the answer is that the third is flatted. So, you actually
continue to play that same major tonal center set of notes, but now you just
practice flatting the thirds. And, hey, you might want to try flatting those
7ths too when you feel up to it. It's a sort of common sense approach. For
me, it doesn't make me feel as if I have to learn two more "scales" or
"modes" to get there, though, in a sense I am, just without naming them. It
makes me feel as if I only have to think about one extra note rather than
learn an entirely new scale. I like that. It's a lot less daunting.
It does, obviously, require some knowledge of chord spelling, that being
it's only "flaw" imho if you have never worked on that.
There are so many ways to approach improvising. Each of us has to find the
one that works best for him/her self.
pmfan57
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you sure all the players that think that way don't sound
authentic? Wes, Benson and Martino would play "minor" in a lot of
situations other than playing over a minor chord. Do you consider
this chord/scale?
Bg
> sharp in it, to think of it as a G major pattern. If I come to an Am7 chord
> in that set, it is easier for me to think that I just have to play the G
> major scale with some thought to the chord tones in the Am7 chord than it is
> to say to myself, "Ah, now I have to switch from the G Ionian scale to the A
> Dorian scale". I find that to be over the top with just too much analysis. I
> understand it, but I don't want to have to think that way. Put that way, it
> seems as if I had to learn and memorize two different scales instead of just
> the one that it really is.
>
> Now toss in a D7 chord and instead of thinking, "stay in the G major scale
> with some attention to the chord tones of D7 and hey, whatever I play, I
> just need to remember there's only ONE sharp...", in the modal system, I now
> have to think, "I need to go from the G Ionian scale to the A Dorian scale
> to the D Mixylodian scale". Aw gee, I have to learn three different scales
> now, where before I thought it was just one...
Generally speaking I agree with your approach, but sometimes there's
not time to think of all this when you're sight reading thru a set of
changes, and that's when I need chord/scale or modal approach.
Bg
335
>
> basic major scales, you don't have to learn the minor scales because, with
> some exception, they share the same fingering patterns. A C major scale is
> the same as an A minor scale if you disregard distinctions like harmonic
> minor vs melodic minor issues for the moment.
There are similarities in the fingering patterns but that doesn't mean
you don't need to learn the melodic and harmonic scales from their
roots. You definitely DO need to learn them in order to improvise.
>
> It is much easier for me if, for example, I'm playing in a key that has one
> sharp in it, to think of it as a G major pattern. If I come to an Am7 chord
> in that set, it is easier for me to think that I just have to play the G
> major scale with some thought to the chord tones in the Am7 chord than it is
> to say to myself, "Ah, now I have to switch from the G Ionian scale to the A
> Dorian scale".
When you get to the Am7 generally speaking you want to stress the
chord tones of Am7. If you just "play G major" over Aminor 7 it will
most likely sound undefined. The point usually is to play the chord
tones on strong beats in the measure. tonal center playing
deemphasizes how to handle chord tones which in my opinion is a
serious drawback.
I find that to be over the top with just too much analysis. I
> understand it, but I don't want to have to think that way. Put that way, it
> seems as if I had to learn and memorize two different scales instead of just
> the one that it really is.
It's just G major starting from the second degree, it's really not
that big of a deal. you should know the arpeggio for each chord too.
>
> Now toss in a D7 chord and instead of thinking, "stay in the G major scale
> with some attention to the chord tones of D7 and hey, whatever I play, I
> just need to remember there's only ONE sharp...", in the modal system, I now
> have to think, "I need to go from the G Ionian scale to the A Dorian scale
> to the D Mixylodian scale". Aw gee, I have to learn three different scales
> now, where before I thought it was just one...
With practice it becomes more automatic and you won't have to think of
every chord change as a mode starting from a root but it's not a bad
thing to practice for ear training and for emphasizing the chord tones
and hearing the general chord sound. It's not a matter of paying "some
attention" to chord tones. You want to beable to pay a lot of
attention to them in a deliberate way by making melodies with them.
>
> It's just seems to add layers that seem unnecessary to me. Of course, I'm
> just a student of guitar and little more, but these are the things I've
> learned over the years, regarding my style of learning, about the way I
> would teach the guitar to someone if I was teaching guitar.
Tonal centers are a good way to start but you need to get more
specific in order to create a strong solo. It's a good idea to get
your arpeggios really strong so you can state the sound of the chords.
I can usually tell when someone is just playing off tonal centers. It
often sounds like noodling because the player has not learned to place
chord tones on strong beats.
Learn arpeggios, learn scales, learn modes ( which are already in the
scales) and apply them to tunes. Pick up a simple theory book to learn
about tensions on chords, listen to a lot of records and cop stuff.
I'm puzzled why anyone would have a problem with learning scales and
modes. How in the heck are you going to handle tunes that change key
and get around on an instrument that's as complicated as the guitar
without knowing them.
Carl
"Bg" <ott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46aeb2c6-a825-4e3a...@b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
this is all of interest to me as a student, so allow me to beg the issue for
the sake of the thread and the learning process.
What I look for now, when sight reading, are the ii-V-I's. I try to see them
as a cluster. If I see Dm7-G7-Cmaj, I think that now I need a C major tonal
center cluster of notes. The truth is, for a basic improv, you don't even
have to worry about the chord tones: almost any of the tones will fit
against any of the changes. But that's where your ear comes in (I know there
are "avoid" notes, but I don't dislike an F note played against a C chord
for some reason, especially if I don't stay on it- but maybe my ear just
sucks that bad...I will eventually learn to "sharp" the F to get that cooler
#11 sound, but not yet) ;-)
I'm currently trying to work on Central Park West, at best an extremely
challenging project for me. I chose that because I think it's good as a much
slower intro to attacking Giant Steps.
The first thing I see are the C#m7-F#7-Bmaj7. Then I see the Em7-A7-Dmaj7. I
know I have to begin with a Bmaj tonal center and immediately change to a
Dmaj tonal center. The challenge for me, as I see it, is to know those two
tonal center fingerings in as close to the same position as possible. With
some time working on it, I can actually get there, and I have for brief
moments. I get faith that more practice (which I'm totally bad at) would
make it work for me.
When I finally get those tonal center changes in one position, I'm going to
work on it in another position, etc.
My improv attempt on a piece like this is not likely to sound like much for
quite some time. But I wouldn't even begin to think of attempting this if I
had to think of the modes. But that's just me. I think some people think
like me while others are comfortable with the modal approach.
Hey, sorry for writing so much, but I just love theory.
Carl
"335" <335p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a992a0d-d1d9-478f...@m31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 9:18 pm, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
> Generally speaking (and of course there are exceptions), if you learn the
> 5
> basic major scales, you don't have to learn the minor scales because, with
> some exception, they share the same fingering patterns. A C major scale is
> the same as an A minor scale if you disregard distinctions like harmonic
> minor vs melodic minor issues for the moment.
There are similarities in the fingering patterns but that doesn't mean
you don't need to learn the melodic and harmonic scales from their
roots. You definitely DO need to learn them in order to improvise.
>
>
There are instructors who believe you should avoid learning scales of any
kind from the roots. The tonal center approach de-emphasizes beginning on
the root and de-emphasizes scales, which is why they're called "tonal
centers" and not "scales". Many players who learn from root-based scales,
begin all their phrases on a root note. It's harder to break away from that
when you've muscle-memoried it that way. What are your thoughts on this?
>
>> It is much easier for me if, for example, I'm playing in a key that has
>> one
> sharp in it, to think of it as a G major pattern. If I come to an Am7
> chord
> in that set, it is easier for me to think that I just have to play the G
> major scale with some thought to the chord tones in the Am7 chord than it
> is
> to say to myself, "Ah, now I have to switch from the G Ionian scale to the
> A
> Dorian scale".
When you get to the Am7 generally speaking you want to stress the
chord tones of Am7. If you just "play G major" over Aminor 7 it will
most likely sound undefined. The point usually is to play the chord
tones on strong beats in the measure. tonal center playing
deemphasizes how to handle chord tones which in my opinion is a
serious drawback.
>
>
This is an excellent point, but I think we basically said the same thing. I
agree that tonal center PLAYING might cause one to de-emphasize chord tones,
but good tonal center TEACHING does not.
>
>
I find that to be over the top with just too much analysis. I
> understand it, but I don't want to have to think that way. Put that way,
> it
> seems as if I had to learn and memorize two different scales instead of
> just
> the one that it really is.
It's just G major starting from the second degree, it's really not
that big of a deal. you should know the arpeggio for each chord too.
>
This is true. I'm not terrible at this. I sort of know the arpeggios. I do
need to knwo them better.
While I agree with much of what you have said here, I can point you to some
very good players who know nothing about scales or modes. I played with one
guitarist who couldn't name a chord or a note on the guitar. But he just
listened to the tune for 5 minutes and could not only play the correct chord
forms (though he couldn't name them) but could improv solo rings around me.
Btw, slightly off topic, my son is that way. He can play almost anything he
wants. He can't name any of it. He's a really good song-writer too. And no,
he's not a savant, but a rather bright and talented young man in general who
just refuses to "think in the box". He won't take lessons and he won't
self-study. He has no patience for that and none for theory. No one ever
told him he couldn't play the guitar (or the piano for that matter) that way
so he just DOES it. I just find it all so amazing.
335
> There are instructors who believe you should avoid learning scales of any
> kind from the roots. The tonal center approach de-emphasizes beginning on
> the root and de-emphasizes scales, which is why they're called "tonal
> centers" and not "scales". Many players who learn from root-based scales,
> begin all their phrases on a root note. It's harder to break away from that
> when you've muscle-memoried it that way. What are your thoughts on this?
True. You just have to be sure to practice the scale in a way so
you're not always starting on the root. There's a lot of literature
out there on ways to practice scales to avoid root bias. Ayway, the
point is to make music with scales not just to run them up and down.
The tonal center approach doesn't deemphasize scales really, it just
distills things down to a few parent scales. That can work but it can
really oversimplify what goes into a strong solo. If you are talking
on a technical level, then in my opinion, targeting chord tones is a
significant part of what it's about. That's why I would recommend
getting your arpeggios together. Simplifying down to a few parent
scales can make one sort of gloss over the individual chord tones
becasue it encourages you to run the parent scale over any diatonic
chord. You want to be aware of every chord tone in every chord that's
being played and the tensions that can be played on that chord.Some
people can pick this up quickly by ear, but most can't, they have to
study and practice.
>
>
> This is true. I'm not terrible at this. I sort of know the arpeggios. I do
> need to knwo them better.
You need to be really strong on arpeggios. how else are you going to
state the chord tones? imo, you shouldn't underestimate the importance
of that.
>
>
> While I agree with much of what you have said here, I can point you to some
> very good players who know nothing about scales or modes. I played with one
> guitarist who couldn't name a chord or a note on the guitar. But he just
> listened to the tune for 5 minutes and could not only play the correct chord
> forms (though he couldn't name them) but could improv solo rings around me.
There are some people like that but in the jazz improvisation area
they are the exception to the rule. Not everyone learns these things
the same way though. Some people are more intuitive and some have very
exceptional ears. But for getting around on the guitar and being able
to play through different keys as many jazz tunes demand, it's just
about essential to know scales. The problem is not knowing them, it's
making music with them. Some people can do this intuitively but they
are a in the minority.
>
> Btw, slightly off topic, my son is that way. He can play almost anything he
> wants. He can't name any of it. He's a really good song-writer too. And no,
> he's not a savant, but a rather bright and talented young man in general who
> just refuses to "think in the box". He won't take lessons and he won't
> self-study. He has no patience for that and none for theory. No one ever
> told him he couldn't play the guitar (or the piano for that matter) that way
> so he just DOES it. I just find it all so amazing.
It sounds like he has good ears. I wouldn't force a guy to learn
theory and scales if he can be creative without that knowledge. It
depends on what you want to do musically and on the musical situations
you want to function in.
Paul K
> There are instructors who believe you should avoid learning scales of any
> kind from the roots. The tonal center approach de-emphasizes beginning on
> the root and de-emphasizes scales, which is why they're called "tonal
> centers" and not "scales". Many players who learn from root-based scales,
> begin all their phrases on a root note. It's harder to break away from that
> when you've muscle-memoried it that way. What are your thoughts on this?
>
It shouldnt be "either or". To take the oposite position for the sake of
argument, often the problem with the "tonal center" improv approach is that
in diatonic chord progressions no harmonic movement is implies. For example,
on "autumn leaves" you can stay in the same "tonal center" for the entire
tune, with no concern for the harmony. It always sounds boring to me when
people do that. Melodies that emphasize chord tones (even if the phrases tend
to start from the root) are typically an improvement.
On a song with frequently shifing chords like central park west or GS, the
tonal center thing can be easier.
Paul K
--
http://www.youtube.com/TopologyPaul
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
drthoma...@gmail.com
I'm talking about how they got to that point. It wasn't via chord/
scale theory. It's worth considering how those guys found their way to
those sounds.
Carl
you'll see that I made a distinction between tonal center PLAYING and tonal
center TEACHING. The former would result in a quick ability to create some
rudimentary improvs, but in that "boring" result in the long run that you're
referring to. Good tonal center teaching leads you to the other things
you've mentioned.
hw
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bf9d6180-5bf5-4274...@s17g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>
> Are you sure all the players that think that way don't sound
> authentic? Wes, Benson and Martino would play "minor" in a lot of
> situations other than playing over a minor chord. Do you consider
> this chord/scale?
no, that has nothing to do with what's generally called chord/scale
approach. for these guys the progression is the boss (that is, they think
more about the movements of the chords than about the chords themselves.)
their concept is based on functions, voice leading and licks.
you could also argue that wes had some sort of mirror concept compared to
martino, meaning that wes converted a lot of stuff to *major*. the maj9 arp
starting on the maj7 was his trademark after all. he also loved major triads
over minor chords, like CAF GEC FDBb over Gm7. i think garrison fewell
teaches along those lines. but major and minor are just two sides of the
same coin and become interchangable once you start playing over the
underlying functions instead of isolated chords. bebop and related soloing
is mainly artful voice leading.