Soloing

[mcmurray]

If you look at "Lester Leaps In"' date=' you will see that the chords are basically the "rhythm changes"

 

The A part is basically repeats of 1-6-2-5 with the tonic reflecting the key signature. If the chart is in Bb, the chords will be based on Bbmaj7 Gm7 Cm7 F7.

 

The bridge goes through the cycle of fifths in dominants. With a key signature of Bb the bridge goes:

 

|D7 | ./. |G7 | ./. | C7 | ./. |F7 | ./. |

 

In my parlance, the "tone centre" in these eight bars goes from G to C to F to Bb (which happens to lead nicely into the last 8 which are in Bb).

 

When I improvise over these eight bars, I need to change key every two bars.

 

I might do this in position by using the following scales:

 

D mixolydian

D dorian

D aeolian

D phrygian

 

R

[/quote']

 

I agree with everything here.

[Robin Nahum]

It doesn't. It's wholly restricted to A major and it's relative minor.

 

Okay' date=' this piece mightn't but you get the idea.

 

 

 

What if it's not Jazz and there's no V chord? What you are saying is correct' date=' however that is not the only way to determine the tonal centre. Hearing it is the simplest way.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

 

Although for me, analysis of chords is the easiest because I came to music later and my ear is differently developed.

 

R

[milod]

 

 

Hmmmmm. Now tell me about playing in what key with what scales and...

 

<chortle>

 

And what does one call the discussion over a whisky after such a concert? Bartok, of course.

 

Seriously, this is the sort of thing that fouls me up for getting hung up about scales and keys without a somewhat more detailed discussion of "style." I could feature a latter-day Bartok taking, for example, a dance style 12-bar blues and doing ... interesting things with it.

 

m

[Robin Nahum]

I think we're done... for now.

[Robin Nahum]

 

 

Hmmmmm. Now tell me about playing in what key with what scales and...

 

<chortle>

 

And what does one call the discussion over a whisky after such a concert? Bartok' date=' of course.

 

Seriously, this is the sort of thing that fouls me up for getting hung up about scales and keys without a somewhat more detailed discussion of "style." I could feature a latter-day Bartok taking, for example, a dance style 12-bar blues and doing ... interesting things with it.

 

m

[/quote']

 

Hi Milo,

 

I need to see the chart - but I expect that it will just be bunches of grapes and no chord symbols so it might take a while.

 

But what would you recommend if I wanted to get started listening to Bartok and Ligeti?

 

I have heard a fair bit of Hungarian folk music and heard of Ligeti through 2001. Now I would like to go the next step.

 

R

[mcmurray]

 

 

 

This is some great stuff Milod, I'd like to hear more!

 

I've never paid much attention to 20th century composers, but I think I should.

[mcmurray]

Although for me' date=' analysis of chords is the easiest because I came to music later and my ear is differently developed.

 

R

[/quote']

 

With Jazz, chord analysis is definitely the easiest way to go, at least at first.

 

I will say this though, it's never too late to start training your ears

[milod]

I really have to admit I just googled for Youtube Bartok string quartets.

 

When I did a bit of music study in college = <grin> Uni to non-U.S. Anglophones = it was under a string quartet whose members really loved this sorta stuff. Bartok and Webern more than Schoenberg... Don't ask me why, though.

 

 

which is somewhat more ... individualistic perhaps?

 

I actually wrote a 12-tone piece for piano at the time, complete to inversions, retrogrades, retrograde inversions and... other stuff.

 

Frankly I think that in reaction, deep down, it kinda make me want to do more of the less intellectualized sort of music for myself regardless of style. So even my "jazz" tends to be pretty straight melody with a pretty straight chord structure.

 

------ self-recorded in a little office one guitar, amp, mike...

 

At least that's my story. Actually I'm such a slow sight reader that I lost my trumpet first chair in orchestra when I was discovered in a dixieland thing they actually expected me to play what was on the map. <grin and chortle> Oops. That also was the freshman year in which I hit the guitar no less than about 6 hours a day to learn how to play the darned thing. I did pretty much the folkie pre-hippy semi-beatnik rebellion thing. My grades reflected it.

 

Too soon oldt, too late schmardt. BTW, wish the old guy a happy birthday: Aug. 11.

 

m

[zigzag]

So, I'm going to assume (after this great discussion) that, in order to get the the answer that Californiaman was looking for, the question should have been asked: What is the relative minor key for E Major?

 

I suspect that Californiaman was testing the group to gauge the extent of our understanding of theory.

[milod]

Ziggie... Perhaps....

 

But I guess there's theory and there's theory - which is why I made the request I did in terms of asking "what style."

 

I think anybody can check relative minors just online, etc. - IMHO it's something one should have learned pretty much in their first cupla months of guitar playing.

 

Theory? I do find it interesting that yeah, we've gotta lotta guys on here who know their theory far better than I do, but then there are the John Lee Hookers of the world who can't even read... I'd posit that regardless what he played, he would have been at a loss to explain the theory behind it. Bill Monroe of bluegrass innovation fame is another. When I was a kid in college the joke was that he even talked "modal." But...

 

One might question whether some of the more dissonant stuff is truly for soloing, but soloing for what is my big Q. If the phrasing is right, is there any reason why a "B" or "Bb" shouldn't make sense in the key of "C" on guitar? Dissonant? Yeah, but if you're bending and/or vibrato-ing, I could almost feature one note going on forever regardless of theoretical dissonance in a rock-blues thing depending on circumstances - and style - both on guitar and in a vocal.

 

That's also why I tossed in my reaction to some of the theory "stuff." I don't want to dis theory because the basics, at minimum, are a requisite for the kind of music most of us will be playing for audiences. On the other hand, theory ain't music, and specifically it ain't musical performance. It's a scientific (one hopes) explanation and/or description of music.

 

m

[ShredAstaire]

I see the value of theory...without doubt....but man, some people aren't THAT into the guitar that they can or even want to spend the amount of time required to learn theory. Some people just wanna strum on their geet while they're watching TV, or play some campfire songs etc.

 

As with almost everything we discuss on this forum, it all depends on what you are doing...if you're a pro and you're out there recording and performing, you should probably know your theory (at least enough for the style you play)...if you're just playing for fun and enjoyment, you don't need it...feel out what sounds right. There's something about "making up" a solo with no knowledge of scales....if it fits and it sounds good with the chords you have going, its like a victory.

 

I see both sides of this argument and i think neither is right....depends on what you are doing with your guitar.

 

With that said, my wife just signed me up for some classes...i'ma learn some theory!

[mcmurray]

So' date=' I'm going to assume (after this great discussion) that, in order to get the the answer that Californiaman was looking for, the question should have been asked: What is the relative minor key for E Major?

 

I suspect that Californiaman was testing the group to gauge the extent of our understanding of theory.[/quote']

 

I'll drink to that.

[ChanMan]

The reality is this.... we who know absolutely no theory can still lay down a killer lead. We can have a great feel for music and not have the foggiest idea what notes/chords/scales we're playing. We can even communicate this amongst our band members quickly and easily by going "I played it here <strum chord>".

 

But.... and this is crucial.... unless you are an Eddie Van Halen or an Angus Young, you're cutting your available opportunities to work in this business substantially. Like FM said, it will be like working with folks who speak an entirely different language. Plus, you will work harder to get what you want. That's what "trial and error" is. You'll play around looking for a note or a chord, where those who know theory will know exactly where they can go to get the feeling they're looking for.

 

I know all of this because I am self taught and know almost no theory, and would be crippled if someone told me to "solo over this in C#m".

 

Just sayin'. Spot me a couple of notes and I'm all over it, but I don't speak the language.... and THAT is a deal breaker for a lot of folks in this town.

[WahKeen]

I agree with ChanMan in various points. Although I don't know a whole lot of theory and know only enough to barely get by, I am self taught and have played by ear all my life.

 

And speaking of style, I play Praise and Worship, which a lot of it depends on FEELING or SPIRIT. When I'm playing lead, I close my eyes and let the feeling take me. The notes fall in the right place, I can anticipate where to go with ample time, and experiment with the melodies.

 

I also play a lot of rock and blues and those styles require a different approach, of course. There is a lot more out there to learn and I am fully aware of that. I'm a "do it myself" kind of guy and when I reach a "victory" it's very rewarding. On the other hand, I realize I'm taking the long way there and know the limitations in my approach. Would I like to have more theory? Absolutely. Call me lazy I guess.

 

And lastly, I think most musicians play for the regular people, and many times they don't know if you're a pro or not (unless it's obvious you're a beginner). I play paid gigs with just me my electrics and tracks, play at church, and also play at nursing homes. All ask me back and as long as that happens there is a place for "us".

[zigzag]

I'm not suggesting that those who don't know theory can't be killer players. I'm just saying that learning theory and scales/modes will take your playing to a higher level. I know I tend to rely too much on scales, and I need to let notes ring, so I'm still developing great licks and technique. But I'm a lot further along than I would be without that knowledge.

[milod]

....

 

I just got done with a 30-minute interview that ended up 2 hours with a Russian concert artist who married a local guy. She has her masters from the Tchaikovsky Conservatory in Moscow after even her childhood was spend in developing concert violinist and piano skills and music theory.

 

But... she said... she's concerned that so much "classical" music in concerts is for old people played too often by tired ensembles playing music that people just don't get and think they should listen to because it's "art."

 

Tonight I'll hear her concert with her own music fusing classical, rag, jazz, pop and blues. She loves U.S. country music and dance... 20s blues a la Bessie Smith, etc...

 

The point is that it's not so much the heavily theorized music, but music that lives.

 

I found that ... very interesting.

 

m

[mcmurray]

Welcome back guys.

 

------ self-recorded in a little office one guitar, amp, mike...

 

Nice work