Scales to Licks - An Analysis

Ok, so it’s a while since I posted on this blog, and the last entry was a bit messy (at least it was for me).

Anyway, despite being mad busy with getting final-year Uni work finished I found a couple of minutes to pick up the guitar the other day, and decided to have a little mess with getting some lick ideas out of a scale. If I’ve not mentioned this before, this is something I usually struggle with – firstly to find ideas that don’t sound scalic, and secondly to find more than one idea from the same scale without each sounding very alike (I tend to concentrate on one area of the fretboard at a time, so this is quite common).

On this particular occasion, I came up with a couple of ideas which sounded good (just over a single-chord vamp) and after another go at trying to expand on these ideas I now have a total of 6 licks which I think are pretty decent, at least as a starting point.

When coming up with these ideas, my internal mental process was a mixture of things I’d absorbed from books/DVDs/lessons, and a certain amount of messing about or just trying this or that. So, I thought it might be useful to dissect these ideas, and analyse them to see what I’ve absorbed into my approach, and if there are any patterns in the subconscious/haphazard part of the approach which I can document and use consciously next time I try to do the same thing.

The idea here isn’t to memorise the licks themselves, nor to squeeze every drop of creativity out of the process by writing it down, but just to become aware of the ways in which I can string notes together to make them sound less….strung together, I suppose.

The main idea which prompted me to give this exercise another go was to visualize the chord shape (in this case an Emaj7) within the relevant scale. As long as you’re reasonably familiar with the chord tones and their function within the chord shape, then it gives you quite a few reference points for building the scale (I always find it easier to think in chords than scales). My aim then was to use the chord shape as a framework to weave in and out of, using the other scale tones to do so.

Anyway, videos will follow tomorrow along with some hopefully useful observations.

Characteristics and Perception of Lead Playing

I have recently been looking at, or revisiting, a number of areas of my playing when practicing. After one particular session, I began to think about the characteristics of typical lead playing found in a variety of musical styles, and about any on which emphasis or priority might be placed.

*I’ll add here that the wondering driving this train of thought was as to whether firstly) those new at playing in a particular style gave the above any thought before attempting it, and secondly) why people seem to find it easier to play in one style than another, even with the same technical/theoretical starting point. Ultimately) I wondered if there was a style which offered an equal balance of all the characteristics mentioned (which would be equally relevant or ‘important’) and thus provided the ideal starting point for someone to begin their study of lead playing.

The first two that came to mind were (perhaps unsurprisingly) phrasing and note choice. It occurred to me that whilst we would expect these to be fundamental aspects of lead-playing in the vast majority of guitar-related music, there are others to consider. For example, rhythm and melodic movement.

At this point I decided I should try to define these terms, and in doing so found myself considering a number of questions, as given below:

*NB. I wanted to add headings to the following to prevent it from becoming too rambling, but it was difficult to determine where a heading should go and what it should say. Also, some assumptions are made and I fully expect some people to disagree with these on principal. Hopefully the rest of you will bare with me.

-We probably typically think of blues playing as a starting point for discussing phrasing, but this is usually at a relatively sedate pace; and phrases tend to be quite short.

-Within these short phrases, we presumably rely on varying the rhythm of the constituent notes and upon emphasising the ones we think sound particularly pleasing.

-This emphasis will often be in the form of sustaining the chosen note for a longer period of time than for other ‘supporting’ notes, or by playing the note at a greater/lesser velocity etc.

-If we take the above assumptions to be true, then we have a definition of a phrase as a group of notes to which we’ve applied a particular combination of other characteristics. But why these particular characteristics in this particular context?

What if we consider other scenarios:

-If we increase the speed of the piece (so our guitarist plays faster), do we increase the size of each phrase?

-Does the length have an effect on the ‘validity’ or effectiveness of the phrase? *Do we define validity in terms of what we are personally familiar with/favour, in terms of conventions of a musical style, or both?

-If we’re still concerned with the idea of phrases being short ‘snippets’ of musical information, then does the decreased amount of space separating each phrase affect each phrase also?

-If we are faced with a long succession of notes of equal value – perhaps a solo in a piece of extreme metal, or in some jazz – then do we look at a long phrase or one endless ‘stream of notes’?

-Aside from the usual requirement to remain diatonic to the key (or the particular scale chosen), does the choice of notes become less important?

-If the rhythm or value of the notes is constant, then there are fewer ways to emphasise one note over another.

-If this is the case, does the general melodic shape of the lead line become of greater importance?

-And consider the contrary: when we focus on note choice, do we become less interested in the melodic shape or direction of a solo?

-Can the same be said of phrasing using wider, strongly intervallic ideas?

-Do scalic ideas lend themselves more readily to creating a sense of melodic direction? If so, is this at the expense of melodic and/or rhythmic interest?

When people have difficulty playing in a given style (technical considerations aside), to what extent can the ideas discussed above be cited as contributing factors?

How about when people have difficulty in listening to or appreciating playing in a given style? Do people new to jazz find it un-listenable because of the tendency to emphasise less-familiar notes? Are those who dislike ‘fast’ playing disorientated by the way in which speed affects our concept of phrasing or the lesser influence placed on rhythmic variation? Or those who find blues playing boring used to music with more emphasis on the general melodic shape of a piece?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, by the way, but I’m sure it’d make for an interesting discussion if anyone’s game. What has become apparent is how great a role personal familiarity with a given style would seem to influence our opinions both regarding that style and others, although there is no doubt this could work in a positive way just as much as a negative (the inspiration that comes as a result of discovering something previously completely alien to us, for example).

Time for a cuppa.

Extending Pentatonic Shapes

When looking at scale shapes in the past, I've found it difficult to link shapes together and move between them fluently, so I was keen to address this when revisiting the common 2nps pentatonic scale shapes.

It occured to me that using a variety of approaches to cover the same material would help reinforce the position of the notes without becoming disengaging, and would provide a more musical experience. I found the following useful in becoming familiar with the position of notes for a particular scale across a 'full' half of the fingerboard without my thinking becoming rooted inside these common box shapes:

Nb - clearly there are many permutations of all these exercises
-Only spending long enough on 2nps shapes to become vaguely familiar with them
-Converting 2nps shapes into 3nps shapes moving along the fingerboard
-Looking at 3nps shapes across the fingerboard introducing repeated notes

At the lower end of the fingerboard, these 3nps shapes can become tricky or sometimes unplayable using just the fretting hand. Where this was the case, I began to look at 1nps horizontal shapes across the fingerboard and using tapping to play these 3nps patterns as 2-note (fretting hand) + 1-note (tapped) ideas. When played in one position this gives a 'box' shape + a 'line' of notes, and when played moving along the neck allows you to cover a much greater area and use much wider intervals than would be possible using the fretting hand alone (for most people). This is cool because:

-Wider intervals sound less predictably pentatonic
-This idea encourages you to 'think' in two areas of the fretboard simultaneously, rather than just one
-Higher up the neck, you can also play wider intervals with the fretting hand

Another useful method of linking scale shapes together is by playing each horizontal pattern as 3-note chords (four groups of 3 across 6 strings). This helps to reinforce three notes at a time, rather than just one, and helps to give a more harmonic and rhythmic perspective to these pentatonic ideas. This 3-note chord shape idea can then be modified to incorporate notes from the previous or next 'line' shape (thus playing the chords within one of the original 2nps box shapes). This idea is demonstrated in Alex Machacek's DVD 'Pentatonic Concepts', which is providing something of a rough guide for my own exploration and something to check back to if I feel like I'm getting a little lost.

Pentatonic Scales

Unlike most guitarists, I've never really spent much time learning the common major and minor pentatonic scales. So I thought I'd better start. Even though I've not yet studied this area in depth, several things seem worth focussing on:

-the potential for creating musically exciting ideas based on a pentatonic scale beyond cliche blues licks, achieved through:
-->fluent linking of the common 2-note per string (NPS) shapes
-->creating 3nps patterns to help break out of the above
-->use of wider intervals and irregular rhythmic/accented groupings
-->use of all 3 pentatonic scales present within a key

-the explanation of more 'advanced' scales or modes through the idea of 'altered' or 'added to' pentatonic scales

Although initially building on the common 2nps patterns, I aim to keep this area of study as free from learning shapes as possible in a conscious effort to familiarise myself with and internalise note positions and intervals. As I think this area will provide the foundation for the explanation of many concepts considered to be more 'advanced' (and perhaps something of a 'safety net' for future improvisation), it is something I feel I should understand as fully as possible before considering more 'complex' (and sometimes academically favoured) approaches.

Triads as Building Blocks

14-04-09
Breaking down complex chords into more ‘manageable’ chunks.

This is a very simple concept which many musicians/guitarists will be familiar with, but some won’t be, or won't be used to thinking in this way. It seems pretty obvious, but then most things are once they’ve been explained to you. I use this for simplifying more complex or extended chords, but thinking-wise this concept assumes only that you know how to construct major and minor triads (if you’re not sure, there’s plenty of stuff on the internet).

This concept came about simply from exploring what would fit musically over one chord – in this case an Am7. What this turned into is a method I find really useful for breaking up more complex chords – seeing them as a stack of basic major or minor (or diminished) triads rather than a ‘big scary jazz chord’ with lots of extensions.

As daft as it seems, this approach didn’t occur to me until it was pointed out a couple of weeks back and I’ve been exploring it and having fun with it ever since – it’s an approach that really ‘clicks’ with me. I think it’s the way it helps the transition between a very simple idea and a more complex chord – I find it really gets ‘inside’ the ‘parent’ chord and gets me thinking in terms of scale tones, and also in terms of similarities between chords that might not seem to be closely related at all.

Edit 1 - the following are some points I drafted at the end of the above. For the sake of remaining concise, I've left them as bullets.

-If you’re working with just major and minor chords, you can now imply some new flavours or colours simply by adding the 7^th

-Clearly there are many voicings or inversions even for a triad, so there’s a lot of room for exploring this concept.

-You can bring out different flavours of complex chords without crazy hard-to-play shapes.

-You can now play major ideas over minor chords and vice-versa.

-If you’re getting into jazz, even sticking with 7^th chords you now have two ideas for each chord instead of one.

-Can be a useful way of achieving some ideas and separation if you have more than one guitarist to consider

-Setting out the notes of a key in this way is also useful because it effectively orders the notes in importance in relation to a chord – there’s more ‘space’ between notes now, and it looks less crowded than a scale à this sets out more of a useful order for the notes and how they relate to each other in the context of a chord.

Edit 2 - as yet I haven't figured out how to add diagrams to these blog posts. If anyone can help with this I'll gladly upload some scribblings to clarify my thoughts.

Four Note Chords

16-04-09

I first learnt to play seventh chords using chord diagrams, giving shapes with the roots on the 6th or 5th string. For the most part, I found these shapes contained more notes than I knew what to do with, and it took a while to become familiar with the order of the notes and their relation to the root. In some ways, this seems like an odd starting point to present students with, as these shapes invariably contain some notes that aren't 'necessary'.

Simply memorising (as opposed to 'learning') chord shapes means I wasn't actively engaging with the notes I was playing at all.

A useful way of breaking out of this, for me, is to instead concentrate on just four notes - once you have a four note chord built R 3 5 R it provides a handy framework within which to start shifting other notes about. Using four note shapes rooted on the 4th string provide some nice clear-sounding voicings that make it easy or 'logical' to see what you're doing as you start moving notes around - especially if you start with just a major or minor chord and then move through different chord types altering one note at a time.

I also like the idea of a four-note shape as being relatively 'compact' - you know it contains all the important bits, so you can kind of forget about it. If you can avoid barreing or muting the two strings not being played, then these are open to be used to add further extensions on higher strings or further up the fretboard, or in reverse you can start to think about selecting an interesting bass note to play underneath. This can lead to some interesting two-handed ideas, or allows more sonic space in which to construct parts for more than one guitarist.

I concede barre chords and 'bigger' shapes have their place, and some sound really great but it seems that there is an awful lot of emphasis, and perhaps a reliance, placed on these types of chords given that they a) are often not the most logical iterations of many chords, b) are not always the best sounding and c) often 'hog' quite a lot of the fretboard by playing a note on each string. These voicings also make no allowance for the part of the bass player. Whether you’re playing with one or not, it seems careless not to consider this when choosing a chord voicing – many 5 or 6 note voicings are simply doubling the same notes the bassist might choose an invading their sonic ‘space’.

Take Two

So, like many bloggers, I fell victim to the habit of not keeping my blog updated. So let's try again.

I think the problem I found with writing entries for a blog such as this, is that it can be difficult to break up concepts into smaller pieces without feeling like you're offering a set of thoughts that are half-baked or incomplete - even though it's necessary to study things in some sort of isolation for the sake of practicality. Thusly, I have several half-written entries - coming from a handful of sessions that ran into one another - that have escaped upload because I didn't feel like they were 'finished'.

Clearly this makes for a very empty blog, and does nothing to help clarify any understanding which may have been found when looking at the constituent parts initially. With this in mind, I shall aim to make future entries much shorter and more concise. This may result in entries that offer a more 'complete' description of a smaller piece of a concept, or just in a collection of thoughts which need further investigation.

The first task will be to go through those entries already written and to edit them into something more rounded that can be uploaded soon, and then more user and writer-friendly entries will follow. Watch this space...