Improvising against metal-ish flat-5 power chord
Frank D. Greco
ie, instead of root-fifth power chord, its root-and-flat-fifth.
Any suggestions to a decent scale/mode? Of course minor-pent works with
playing the occasional flat-five-note, but there's just something missing.
I have the liberty of taking the feel anywhere since the bass and guitar are
playing the same root-b5, but I wanted to make it interesting.
Diminished scale?
Thx...
Les Scott
news:0jphq4h6osvve7t6a...@4ax.com:
> I need to play a short metal-ish lead again a flat-5 power chord
> static vamp... ie, instead of root-fifth power chord, its
> root-and-flat-fifth.
>
> Any suggestions to a decent scale/mode? Of course minor-pent works
> with playing the occasional flat-five-note, but there's just something
> missing.
>
You'll need to avoid the natural fifth as much as possible.
> I have the liberty of taking the feel anywhere since the bass and
> guitar are playing the same root-b5, but I wanted to make it
> interesting.
>
> Diminished scale?
>
Will you be playing against just a single chord or a progression?
Les
Lawrence Logic
"Frank D. Greco" <fgr...@REMOVECrossroadsTechNOSPAM-FOOBAR.c00m> wrote in
>I need to play a short metal-ish lead again a flat-5 power chord static
>vamp...
> ie, instead of root-fifth power chord, its root-and-flat-fifth.
>
> Any suggestions to a decent scale/mode? Of course minor-pent works with
> playing the occasional flat-five-note, but there's just something missing.
>
> are
> playing the same root-b5, but I wanted to make it interesting.
>
> Diminished scale?
>
>
fits with the notes of the chord that you're playing against. I'll assume
that you're playing in E for the moment, which means that you probably have
a power chord consisting of just E, Bb and another E. That's a nasty
concoction in itself. I imagine that a flattened 2nd, as a passing note
only, would sit well because of F's relationship to Bb, but would clash
horribly with the E. It would have to be just a glancing blow.
Do you have a 3rd in the chord? I've assumed not. You've mentioned the
minor pentatonic but perhaps the chord itself is neither major nor minor -
just horrible. As a less-than-half diminished, it leaves the door open for
all sorts of things.
[alt.guitar.beginner added, as suggested by Tony D. Maybe I'll learn
something!]
--
Lawrence
"For too long, the west has had free reign on talking pieces of human
excrement who may or may not have magical powers." - Buckaroo Banzai - 9
September 2008
Derek
what you want.
It has both the #4/b5, and the b7. You can google it and find some
fingerings for it.
Or you can play a plain Melodic Minor scale a 5th away. Either way
gets you in the same place.
Good luck
Chip
"Frank D. Greco" <fgr...@REMOVECrossroadsTechNOSPAM-FOOBAR.c00m> wrote in
>I need to play a short metal-ish lead again a flat-5 power chord static
>vamp...
> ie, instead of root-fifth power chord, its root-and-flat-fifth.
"Power chords are constructed by playing a root, *perfect fifth* and, in
some cases, perfect octave.
Because the chord does not contain a third, the major and minor qualities
are not present.
They are generally played on electric guitar and are used extensively in
rock music, especially heavy metal, where heavy amounts of distortion are
used.
Because distortion adds a great deal of harmonic content to an electric
guitar's timbre, *perfect intervals are the only intervals with enough
consonance to be clearly articulated and perceived at high distortion
levels*. Even the addition of a third can cause a chord to sound dissonant."
http://www.answers.com/topic/chord-1
The above is the definition of a power chord according to one source. i.e.
there has to be a perfect fifth.
Chip
Rufus
..."power diad" then...whatever...there are many such uses for two-note
"stops" (as we called them in my old viola playing days).
...I'd also point out that your 1-b5 diad (something I've been fooling
around with bit more myself recently, and that can be heard in a lot of
odd places now that I think about it) can also be thought of as the
upper two notes of a 1-3-b7 triad rooted on the 6th string - i.e.; minus
that 6th string root and as a just a 3-b7.
I've been experimenting with playing solos based on using scale
positions in the key of that "missing root" and that can work, depending
on how the composition shifts it's changes and where they are going.
--
- Rufus
dawg
country
seem to know and monkey with, starting with the "power chord" tonic-
flatfive
interval.
pick a fret, X on 6th string. next tone is the flat five on str 5,
next
tone is the octave of X, so you have played 3 tones in a diagonal
line.
now move X up a P4 to 5th string (same fret as X) and repeat. and
repeat
and repeat until you have arrive at X+2 on the high E. now simply
reverse
the diagonal line (x-2) and work your way down the strings until you
arrive
at X+2 on the low E string.
IF you need to anal yze the thing, help yourself - all the tones will
relate to
something somewhere - if your harmony consists of a single implied
chord
(ala a lot of "funk" tunes), then you've got all sorts of intervals
creating various
peaks and valleys of harmony.
you're really dealing probably more with percussive things than
harmonic,
so the harmony REALLY DOESNT'T MATTER (!). throw in some sweep
picking and pretty soon the panties will be flying (refer to
Lumpy).
adding a fourth tone to the diagonal line provides some entertainment,
as
does moving the geometry around a little - go up one set of frets,
down
another. etc etc. don;'t forget distortion, chorus, delay,
phasing, and VOLUME
too.
ed s
i like those answers - thats how i think... ed
Paul P
Do I detect a touch of sarcasm there, ed ? :-)
Paul P
mcyberliver
Try the Lydian mode....1 2 3 +4 5 6 7 8. The 4th is augmented
which is just the same as a diminished 5th. In the key of E this
would be E Fsharp Gsharp Asharp (Bflat) B Csharp Dsharp E.
Also not the tritone between the root and your augmented 4th.
mcyberliver
I agree the Lydian Dominant is far better than the Lydian I suggested
below. Why not utilize the the Locrian Mode (1 b2 b3 4 b5 b6 b7 8),
it is all the rage in Sheet Metal.
Paul P
Uh... why not just play what sounds good ?
Paul P
Lumpy
> Uh... why not just play what sounds good ?
Thank You!
Lumpy
You were the "OPERATION" game voice?
Yes. Take out wrenched ankle.
ed s
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know what you detect . but its not there on my end. ed
Paul P
> On Mar 1, 12:31 pm, Paul P <a...@c.org> wrote:
>
>>ed s wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 28, 9:46 am, Derek <de...@ycoaoffice.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Lydian Dominant, the 4th mode of the Melodic Minor Scale will give you
>>>>what you want.
>>
>>>>It has both the #4/b5, and the b7. You can google it and find some
>>>>fingerings for it.
>>
>>>>Or you can play a plain Melodic Minor scale a 5th away. Either way
>>>>gets you in the same place.
>>
>>>>Good luck
>>
>>>i like those answers - thats how i think... ed
>>
>>Do I detect a touch of sarcasm there, ed ? :-)
> I don't know what you detect . but its not there on my end. ed
Ok, I was just a bit surprised to hear you speaking theory and
thought you might be joking. No harm intended.
Paul P
ed s
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh yes indeed - one of the biggest things I think you can learn are
the way modes can link together. Learn the 7 modes and how they all
fit, and well - take it away....yes there are exceptions to the rules
to be broken and many other thing to learn - but I think it is one of
the biggest to opening your eyes and ears and brain. ed s.
Chip
"Frank D. Greco" <fgr...@REMOVECrossroadsTechNOSPAM-FOOBAR.c00m> wrote in
message news:0jphq4h6osvve7t6a...@4ax.com...
>vamp...
> ie, instead of root-fifth power chord, its root-and-flat-fifth.
>
> Any suggestions to a decent scale/mode?
You could make up a scale.
That's what Mike Bloomfield did in his solo on East West.
Chip
Lumpy
> You could make up a scale.
The bathroom scale.
Or perhaps the demented fish scale.
For grocery store openings, the produce scale.
I don't care much for the postal scale.
kitekrazy
or just play real fast, like they say in Amadeua, "too many notes".
Paul P
What's the difference between "making up a scale" and
"playing what sounds good" ? Do you really think Bloomfield
made up a scale beforehand just so he could solo on it ?
Paul P
Sean
> I don't care much for the postal scale.
That one could blow your head off.
Lumpy
> > I don't care much for the postal scale.
Sean:
> That one could blow your head off.
That would certainly diminish your day.
No minor problem.
Derek
Scales are just a way to organize collections of pitches.
The OP asked for something very specific, a b5 power chord in a metal
setting.
Since it is metal, minor is pretty standard, so that gives us a b5 and
a b3 to work with.
This suggests locrian, lydian dominant, and other ideas. Both of
those also include a b7 which will add to the mix nicely.
So when someone asks for a pitch collection that includes such tones,
it is easy to come up with ideas based on the pitches requested.
Not rocket science.
ed s
Unless you don't even understand a bottle rocket.. you'd be surprise
how much you know without thinking about it. ed
Chip
"Paul P" <a...@c.org> wrote
>> You could make up a scale.
>>
>> That's what Mike Bloomfield did in his solo on East West.
>
> made up a scale beforehand just so he could solo on it ?
Yes. He wanted something bluesy and oriental sounding.
Since you're implying he used a pre-existing scale, please name the scale
he's using (if you can).
Chip
Paul P
I'm implying the opposite. Don't you think that someone of
Bloomfield's caliber would have been thinking more about the
sound of what he was playing than about the actual notes that
he hit to produce that sound ?
I think you and some others are going about music backwards.
You take something that a musician has produced, fit a theory
to it, then imagine that the musician started with that theory
before playing the piece.
I argue that musicians (the real ones) go about things by playing
a lot of stuff off the tops of their heads and, by listening
attentively to it (or breathing it), decide whether they think
it's cool or not. They keep the cool stuff and throw the rest away.
Now, along comes yourself who listens to one of the cool pieces.
You list the notes that were played, fit them into an existing
scale if you can, otherwise you invent a new scale, then say the
musician invented this new scale before composing the piece.
Music is not an intellectual undertaking, it's an emotional one.
Some modern classical music composers, and some modern jazz ones
as well, may go about creating something in a purely mathematical
process but their music is not something that will move the masses.
Bloomfield was a blues a player. I really doubt he cared what
scale he was playing to (I say "to" because I find the idea of
playing "in" a scale is to wall yourself into a box.
I'm in the middle of this interesting DVD featuring Brian Setzer.
At one point he plays this cool run and then says that it's an E
scale, to which have been added a short passing tone to a lot of
the notes, which are not in the E scale (apparently a common jazz
rhythmic construction). So has he invented a new scale or is he
playing an E scale with chromatic embellishments ? Do you think
the first jazz cat to come up with this run worried about whether
the notes were of some scale or not ?
Paul P
RichL
I'm with you, Paul. This particular application of theory would more
properly be called "Monday morning quarterbacking".
You play something against a set of chord changes, it doesn't sound
good, you ditch it. You try something else, it sounds great, you keep
it. Eventually, you develop an ability to generalize from what you've
played in the past that sounds like crap and what sounds good.
This has been mentioned before, but I'll repeat it again, because I
think it's pertinent. Children learn words, and they learn how to use
them in sentences by listening to others. Sometimes they screw up, and
their parents will correct them often on those occasions. But I'll
betcha that a child winds up constructing a sentence that he hasn't
heard before in exactly the same way long before he learns all the rules
of grammar.
There's a lesson to be learned there.
J-Bo
> > That one could blow your head off.
>
> That would certainly diminish your day.
> No minor problem.
>
But it could augment your heir's wealth - in a major way. j-bo
Chip
"Paul P" <a...@c.org> wrote in message
news:71b0aqF...@mid.individual.net...
> Chip wrote:
>>
>> "Paul P" <a...@c.org> wrote
>>
>>>> You could make up a scale.
>>>>
>>>> That's what Mike Bloomfield did in his solo on East West.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really think Bloomfield
>>> made up a scale beforehand just so he could solo on it ?
>>
>>
>> Yes. He wanted something bluesy and oriental sounding.
>>
>> Since you're implying he used a pre-existing scale, please name the scale
>> he's using (if you can).
>
> Now, along comes yourself who listens to one of the cool pieces.
> You list the notes that were played, fit them into an existing
> scale if you can, otherwise you invent a new scale,
I didn't invent a new scale. I'm saying Bloomfield invented a scale.
> then say the
> musician invented this new scale before composing the piece.
I never said he invented the scale before the piece. I suspect the piece and
scale evolved together over time.....and both were a product of what sounded
good to Bloomfield.
> Music is not an intellectual undertaking,
Perhaps not for you.
how much intellect is involved depends on the musician. Many go to music
school for years to learn music theory.
> it's an emotional one.
Ideally it should be a combination of emotion and intellect IMO.
> Some modern classical music composers, and some modern jazz ones
> as well, may go about creating something in a purely mathematical
> process but their music is not something that will move the masses.
Not everyone wants to move the masses. In fact the masses aren't usually
interested in listening to good music.
>
> Bloomfield was a blues a player. I really doubt he cared what
> scale he was playing to (I say "to" because I find the idea of
> playing "in" a scale is to wall yourself into a box.
I suspect he was aware that he was very often playing a pentatonic minor or
blues scale, and both had become second nature to him. Therefore he didn't
have to think about them.
If one knows what the box is....then you have the freedom to go outside the
box, and KNOW you're going outside the box. Real freedom comes from knowing
the rules of music theory, and knowing when to break the rules.
>
> I'm in the middle of this interesting DVD featuring Brian Setzer.
> At one point he plays this cool run and then says that it's an E
> scale,
If Setzer is talking about an E scale, the music is more than emotion to
him. He's getting into music theory and structure.
> to which have been added a short passing tone to a lot of
> the notes, which are not in the E scale (apparently a common jazz
> rhythmic construction).
you are making the point I stated above. If you know the scale (the rule),
you have the freedom to break the rule, and know you're doing it for an
effect.
> Do you think
> the first jazz cat to come up with this run worried about whether
> the notes were of some scale or not ?
I doubt he was worried, but he was probably aware he was playing notes that
were not in a scale. And knowing that scale gave him freedom to play outside
the scale.
Chip
Lumpy
> ... And knowing that scale gave him
> freedom to play outside the scale.
The "scale" is a definition that some academics
have invented to describe some notes that some
musician played. Don't make the mistaken guess
that the theory came before the sound.
If a brand new non-player picks out a few notes
on an instrument, he may be "inside" or "outside"
some scale. But only to those that agree on the
definition of "the scale". To him, he's just
playing some notes.
Everyone is always free to play "outside the scale"
whether they know what the scale is or not.
I'm free to speak "outside the rules" of the
Japanese language and I know nothing at all
about those rules.
Derek
>I think you and some others are going about music backwards.
>You take something that a musician has produced, fit a theory
>to it, then imagine that the musician started with that theory
>before playing the piece.
I don't have to imagine it. I read about guys discussing this all the
time.
Theory is the work of describing what has been done, and why it
works. That doesn't mean someone didn't have theory in mind when they
created music.
I believe it was Bach who had to create a cantata weekly as part of
his job as court composer for a period of years. Think he didn't have
theory in mind during this process?
>I argue that musicians (the real ones) go about things by playing
>a lot of stuff off the tops of their heads and, by listening
>attentively to it (or breathing it), decide whether they think
>it's cool or not. They keep the cool stuff and throw the rest away.
I completely agree. However, it is the more primative (not in a
negative sense) of players who don't see theoretical connections
between what sounds cool and what doesn't.
If you run across something you think is cool, you are going to want
some sort of guidepost or landmark so you can return to the land of
cool again.
Typically it comes in the form of some sort of simple pattern
recognition or simple theory connection.
>Music is not an intellectual undertaking, it's an emotional one.
>Some modern classical music composers, and some modern jazz ones
>as well, may go about creating something in a purely mathematical
>process but their music is not something that will move the masses.
Sorry, but I am calling bullshit on this. For you it MIGHT be purely
emotional, but I doubt it.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is tough to put it back in. I
would think it very rare the player who only plays by emotion and
takes no guidance from knowledge they have gathered.
You think the Boss is just creating music from emotion? I pick him
because he is a pretty emotional artist.
Just like music is not purely emotion, neither is it purely
mathmatical. However, the guys paying the bills are going to make
sure that it appeals to the masses. :-)
Springsteen said to Costas (?) after years of declining invitations to
play the Super Bowl, why now? "Because I have record to promote
dummy".
So he has to keep an eye on both to make it work. At the end of the
day, he is trying to sell records, which is both I think.
>I'm in the middle of this interesting DVD featuring Brian Setzer.
>At one point he plays this cool run and then says that it's an E
>scale, to which have been added a short passing tone to a lot of
>the notes, which are not in the E scale (apparently a common jazz
>rhythmic construction). So has he invented a new scale or is he
>playing an E scale with chromatic embellishments ? Do you think
>the first jazz cat to come up with this run worried about whether
>the notes were of some scale or not.
Great example. I too have this vid. Brian is a very knowledgable
player, and knows exactly what he is doing, and can explain it well.
However, several times in that vid, he allows himself to get carried
away by the music/emotion.
Imo, he demonstrates a great marriage of theory knowledge informing
his playing, but allowing the music to take him places that may or may
not make sense theoretically.
Chip
"Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
news:71c1qfF...@mid.individual.net...
> Chip wrote:
>> ... And knowing that scale gave him
>> freedom to play outside the scale.
>
> The "scale" is a definition that some academics
> have invented to describe some notes that some
> musician played. Don't make the mistaken guess
> that the theory came before the sound.
>
> If a brand new non-player picks out a few notes
> on an instrument, he may be "inside" or "outside"
> some scale. But only to those that agree on the
> definition of "the scale". To him, he's just
> playing some notes.
>
> Everyone is always free to play "outside the scale"
> whether they know what the scale is or not.
>
> I'm free to speak "outside the rules" of the
> Japanese language and I know nothing at all
> about those rules.
I see you have picked up on a badly worded sentence of mine.....and decided
to make an entire post about it.
Chip
Lumpy
> I see you have picked up on a badly worded sentence of mine.....and
> decided to make an entire post about it.
I've read your post(s) in entirety.
I don't agree with your theory about music theory.
I haven't picked apart every word you've said.
I've focused on what I thought was the
main point of your post.
You wanna fuck around with ettiquitte,
or you wanna discuss music theory?
RichL
> If one knows what the box is....then you have the freedom to go
> outside the box, and KNOW you're going outside the box. Real freedom
> comes from knowing the rules of music theory, and knowing when to
> break the rules.
So there are rules about when you should break the rules? Doesn't that
simply enlarge the set of rules and therefore just make the box a
different size/shape?
Who made the rules, anyway?
Did the first guy to break the rules know when to break the rules? Who
decides??
Sometimes people think too much.
Sean
There should be a rule against it.