Given a series of chords, which scale to use?

Your choice of scale really depends on the chords. First you want to look at the chord tones you have:

G = G, B, D
E = E, G#, B
C = C, E, G
D = D, F#, A

So you line them up and see what you have to work with:

A-B-C-D-E-F#-G-G#

That's a total of eight different notes...

If you have seven (one of each letter), you're using a diatonic progression, which stays within one key. If you have more than seven, you're using notes from more than one key, and if you have less than seven there will be more than one key that will work.

By the way, 'key' is defined by BOTH the chords and the melody, and either one can have 'outside' notes or chords. Given your chords, you're almost certainly in the key of G major, with one outside chord.

Since you have more than seven notes, you have three basic choices:

1. Find a scale that uses every tone. A melodic minor is one option; but since you have no A-root chord, it's probably not the best.

2. Simplify the scale so you're using fewer notes. You generally want to use all the chord roots, and the best way to find a good scale is to look for three-chord sets that define a major or minor key. You've got G, C, and D, all of which are in the key of G major - so you could try G pentatonic major (G-A-B-D-E) even though that leaves out the C root.

3. Use more than one scale. You might try changing between E pentatonic major (E-F#-G#-B-C#) and E pentatonic minor (E-G-A-B-D), using the major scale when you have the E major chord and the minor scale for everything else - E minor is relative to G major, which has the rest of your chords.

In the end, there's no 'right' scale for a progression. Notes you use will either work or they won't, and if you can't make a note work someone else probably can - whether or not a note will sound good depends on the shape of the melody, the stress placed on the note, its duration, etc. The more you experiment, the better your ears will be - and the more chioces you'll be able to use.

You know what, I've been coming to this site for 4 1/2 years, got 97% for my Grade 5 Music Theory, and I still can't write an answer like that. I am humbled.

A :-)

You know what, I've been coming to this site for 4 1/2 years, got 97% for my Grade 5 Music Theory, and I still can't write an answer like that. I am humbled.

A :-)

He's wonderfully good isn't he. :D

I especially liked the bit at the end
In the end, there's no 'right' scale for a progression. Notes you use will either work or they won't, and if you can't make a note work someone else probably can - whether or not a note will sound good depends on the shape of the melody, the stress placed on the note, its duration, etc. The more you experiment, the better your ears will be - and the more chioces you'll be able to use.

It seems to confirm what I've been suspecting as I attempt to wend my way through the Harmony Maze - which is that there is definitely a 'Form Guide' that can give you some useful clues about which horse to back, but that the rank outsider can still get up and win if the conditions are right. 8)

I particularly liked "if you can't make a note work someone else probably can". :) Some days it seems like I can't even do much with the C major scale. :cry: Yet on a good day even the most outrageous experiments seem to pay off.... What a wonderful thing music is - just as you think you're almost ready to grab it by the tail, it slips away again and offers fresh challenges, chases and fascinations...

Cheers,

Chris

Tom, that was indeed a very informative post, but why not a 4th and perhaps more easily applied choice: improvise using only (or primarily) the underlying chord tones?

This article from Berklee discusses some of the pros and cons of chord-tones vs. scale-based soloing, the basic point of which seems to be:
Beginning improvisers should, therefore, first experience how good it sounds and how right it feels to play inside the chords using only the chord tones before experiencing the allure and sophistication of chord scales. Improvising melodies using only chord tones connects the soloist to the song's harmony, giving him or her a feeling of oneness with the music. This is essential before a player can hear how to use chord scales and nonharmonic approach notes effectively.

The article does seem geared to jazz improv, but I'm wondering if it has broader application?

Yep, improvising solely with chord tones always works. But I don't advise it for a beginning soloist (although there are plenty of teachers who use that method successfully).

I'm constantly trying to refine the way I teach... mostly because I try to be the best teacher I can be, partly because in the process of asking myself the "how come?" questions I become a better guitarist myself. Here's my current method:

1. A basic scale, like the pentatonic minor, played over a I-IV-V progression. There aren't any bad notes, and the student usually starts out with a 'poke and pray' approach. But it doesn't sound too bad, even if it's not sounding great, and it builds confidence.

2. Next I look at rhythm. Most beginning soloists play WAY too many notes, and put them out in a pretty constant stream. By starting ideas off the beat, I get them to put in some breathing space. This makes a solo sound better, even if nothing else has changed.

3. After they know the actual notes they're playing in the scale, I move to target tones, starting with the chord root. Can you build your phrases so you hit the root note as the chord changes? (Doing this seems to automatically refine their solos from a series of notes to a set of phrases). After that, can you land on the fifth of the chord? - that gets them thinking about the principal stable chord tones, which are natural points of rest.

4. Next I go to a ii7-V7-Imaj7 progression to broaden their ears a bit. When they can find the root and fifth over this, I introduce common tones. If that progression is in C, you've got D-F-A-C, then G-B-D-F; both the D and F notes appear in both chords. Can you land on the F note in the first chord just before the beat, and let the chord 'catch up', making it the seventh? Now they're thinking not just about more chord tones, but about the role each tone plays in a chord, and they're developing more rhythmic expression by using phrases that don't end on the downbeat. (I get them used to starting phrases off the beat in the very beginning!)

5. After that, I introduce more scales - which ones depend on their musical interest. If we're working with the major scale, now they've got a couple of scale tones that don't fit in so well as the pentatonic notes, but they're starting to think about how those notes overlay the chords.

6. Next we do modulating progressions. At first, we simply use the scale of the chord root (the appropriate major, minor, dorian, whatever). This gets them used to the idea that a single scale does not equal a solo, it's just an ingredient.

7. Only at that point do I introduce soloing with chord tones. The reason I wait so long is pretty simple: there are a very small number of common scales, but dozens of common arpeggios. You've really got to have a grasp of the major scale before you can build a good vocabulary of arpeggios.

I don't disagree with the Berklee article at all, and I think Hal Crook probably has the same approach I do in building on prior knowledge. The article isn't so much about improvising with chord tones as it is the importance of learning to use chord tones before moving into "chord scales". If you see Cº in a chart, one possible "chord scale" would be the diminished scale... but you absolutely need to be able to solo using the diminished arpeggio before moving into more exotic stuff.

The chord scale approach requires a lot of mental energy, and if you get into it before your ears are ready you're essentially back to 'poke and pray' - you're spending so much time remembering what notes might go with a chord that you've taken your focus off the melodic line.

Just my two cents worth :)

The article isn't so much about improvising with chord tones as it is the importance of learning to use chord tones before moving into "chord scales". If you see Cº in a chart, one possible "chord scale" would be the diminished scale... but you absolutely need to be able to solo using the diminished arpeggio before moving into more exotic stuff.

Great points all around; thanks for your thorough and thoughtful reply. Definitely more than 2cents worth! 8)

The chord scale approach requires a lot of mental energy, and if you get into it before your ears are ready you're essentially back to 'poke and pray' - you're spending so much time remembering what notes might go with a chord that you've taken your focus off the melodic line.

Just my two cents worth :)

Hi,

Another great post, which I've filed away for more study. Thanks again for your generosity in laying it all out for us.

One good thing about having studied a bit of theory is that I understood what you were saying in those two posts. When I first joined here I would have had no idea what you were talking about. :) :oops:

Now to actually apply it....

Just one question though, please. How do you think that creativity fits into the plan?

Coming from an Engineering background I enjoy studying the structure underpinning any creative endeavour. But I know that having the technical skill or know-how to build the Taj Mahal, for instance, doesn't provide the design inspiration to dream it up in the first place. Some very competent engineers could never design anything much at all, although they could certainly skillfully turn someone else's vision into reality.

A friend of mine who teaches told me that when students learn scales it invariably seems to be done in line order – up and down the scale, until the sounds and positions ‘stick'. Then, when they're asked to improvise using that knowledge they often find it hard to break the pattern and ‘mix it'. The first attempts are usually just the scale with one or two tones played twice in a row, or one skipped or something like that. I think the Berklee article touched on that by suggesting that students improvising with scales tend to run up and down them in small steps and be less inclined to make bigger musical jumps. Whereas using just the chord tones inherently uses larger steps than just single tones or semitones.
Whereas chord tones must be played in leaps (minor third intervals or wider), a chord scale can be played in steps (major and minor second intervals), and consecutive steps are much easier to play fast and accurately than consecutive leaps.

I've often seen the opinion expressed on forums that learning theory can 'stifle creativity'. Now the idea that knowledge can actually diminish what you can do seems utterly ridiculous. It should open doors not close them. But nevertheless, the rather mechanical teaching methods that I sometimes see used could possibly lead to students thinking in rigid patterns which they find hard to break out of. This is maybe true of some players with almost no theory as well - those who perhaps just learn a pentatonic pattern and never learn to see all the other possibilities on the neck. It's a bit of a Catch 22 in a way. You have to do a fair bit of repetition of some kind just to implant the muscle memory and also to get the general feel for how the sounds all relate to each other on the fretboard. But you want to retain the freedom to drive the process rather than have it drive you.

So how does that work? Are some people naturally more creative than others? Can real creativity be taught, or either stifled or promoted? What you have outlined seems very much designed with flexibility in mind, avoiding being too mechancial about learning, and implanting much more than a superficial knowledge of patterns and shapes. So I wondered how it pans out. Do you see a wide variety of types of response from students? Do some doggedly stick to the track while others explore every available by-way, including a few that may even seem to go in the wrong direction?

Cheers,

Chris

Yeah, I do see a wide variety of responses from students.

I think everyone is creative to some degree... and I think everyone is inhibited from expression in some degree. For most folks, it boils down to the question of "how can I be more confident?" rather than "how can I be more creative?"

Little successes today become bigger successes tomorrow. Focus on what you liked in your playing today - not just what worked, but why it might have worked. That frees you from endlessly repeating the 'good riffs' and gets you to risk a bit... if tomorrow's riffs work, great. If they don't, try to figure out what was different - the rhythms? The notes you held (and what chords were happening at the time)?

Everybody bombs sometimes - I know I sure do. But if you figure out how the theory fits into the moment - even after the fact - in time, you'll do better.

It's really a process of internalizing what you've learned. That lets you build your own musical vocabulary.

When I solo, I may start out thinking of specific scales, target tones, etc.... but once I get going, it's all about the line - after a minute or so, if you stopped me and asked what scale I was playing, I probably couldn't tell you without thinking about it.

Music theory is important for organizing what you do, but in the end it isn't what you do - what you do is make music. I think that's where people get hung up on the 'theory stifles creativity'. thing. It might stifle you while you focus on it, because at that moment you're not focused on the music. But once you've learned it well enough that it's second nature, it's in the background. It guides without impeding.

It's a hard concept to express, I guess (maybe because it's late here).

Today I was teaching the tune "Milestones" to a student. Simple progression: Gm7, Fmaj7, Am7. It's in G minor, and the notes of G Dorian will work over the whole thing. But if you're chasing a melodic idea, you're not worried about whether you're playing Eb or E - you're chasing that melodic idea. At that point, worrying about what scale is used is like asking a painter exactly how much blue he used to get that purple shade - there's an exact answer, but it doesn't mean much. It's his answer, not yours....

The real trick is making your own shade of purple :)

Thanks for another interesting and informative reply. :)
It's really a process of internalizing what you've learned. That lets you build your own musical vocabulary.

That's the part that fascinates me. One of the best moments that happened to me with music was sitting here reading a forum post, with the guitar on my lap, and getting very engrossed in what I was reading. When I finished reading I realised that my hands had just kept on playing throughout, without any apparent conscious direction. Nothing dazzling of course, but just pleasant improvised meandering around familiar paths. Just jogging along using that 'internalised' information you mentioned. I guess it's like talking - you don't stop to think about the rules of grammar or the specific vocabulary that you'll use, but the work you put in developing it in the past sure pays off. :)

My own problem is probably not so much lacking creativity or confidence, it's not doing enough targeted and disciplined work to expand that 'internal vocabulary' as much as I'd like. Too much freedom can leave you just as short changed as too much discipline it seems. :oops: Fortunately I have no professional musical goals, and my only aim is to have a pleasant journey, so it's not hard to enjoy myself. :)

Thanks again for all those excellent pointers. I'll start putting some of them into practice forthwith...

Cheers,

Chris.

I've often seen the opinion expressed on forums that learning theory can 'stifle creativity'.

There are two answers to this argument which I particularly like. Both are from interviews in Total Guitar

Joe Satriani - who is your favourite guitar player? Let's say it's Hendrix. Now, you can study some theory and learn why he sounded like he did and what he played and how he played it to sound like that, or you can do nothing and see if you wake up one morning and find you've turned into Jimi Hendrix during the night.

John Frusciante - people who don't want to learn theory are saying that they don't want to talk to you...they just want to rub their [part of male anatomy] over you

Both are give or take the odd word, but you get the message.

Best,

A :-)

John Frusciante - people who don't want to learn theory are saying that they don't want to talk to you...they just want to rub their [part of male anatomy] over you

A :-)

:shock: :shock:

Geez, I'm glad I know a bit of theory then.... :D You can get arrested for that round here...

Fortunately, I've really enjoyed learning theory. For me, it's been one of the most absorbing parts of learning guitar. It's developing the discipline to sit down for a set time each day and work in a structured way on building the skills that I find hard. But one way or another I've managed to reach the goals I've set so far - so I guess it's all good. :)

One of the great things about knowing a bit of theory is that it can actually make everything a lot easier, not just fancier. For instance, when I started out trying to play songs I'd be attempting to always fret every chord in the fullest "by the book" manner and play all the strings. Sometimes the changes seemed unusually tricky. With a bit of theory under the belt though, I was able to see what the songwriter was really doing - which in many cases was something quite simple like briefly lifting one finger and playing a smaller number of strings. When all you know is shapes - and not the reasons behind what makes them up, you're really fighting with one hand tied behind your back. :(

Cheers,

Chris

Wow - thats a lot to get my head around right now! I feel like I am going to be reading this thread for quite a while...thanks guys! I am sure I will post a couple questions here - once I have some intelligent ones :D