Robben Ford Discussion

[Bill Morgan]

[Bill Morgan]

[juspasinby2003]

As Jimmy Bruno says, you can either play "one of these" (referring to a ii, V) or "one of those" (referring to a tritone sub). Jimmy couldn't care less what the proper name for "one of these" is, as long as it sounds good. So, chances are good that we are all singing the same song here, only with varied harmony.

And, Blob, if it's any consolation, I understood what you said the first time, and you did say it correctly when you wrote, "when you see...." It's a proper English idiom even if you weren't referring to a chart. But, I knew that you meant "when reading a chart."

I believe Bill also knew that you meant reading from a chart, and I don't think that he meant to single your post out for criticism. Rather, he saw an opportunity to make the "don't lose the forest for the trees" point and seized it. I think Bill's point is well taken because it's easy to become overwhelmed by too much analysis and too much abstruse theory discussion. It becomes counter-productive if done to excess. It can also discourage the uninitiated from their music pursuits out of a misguided belief that can't succeed becasue they "don't get it." Bill is dead right that you don't have to know this stuff to make music and that music theory, by itself, can't make music. Bill is undeniably correct when he notes that music is for the ear and is not some calculous problem to be solved by differentiation or integration.

Oh, and thank you for your input on the melodic minor question. I'm always interested in the GIT point of view on such matters, and I can put the information to good use (Blob is a GIT alumnus for those who don't know).

[juspasinby2003]

Sorry for the bandwidth abuse, but just one more point. Kirk makes a spot on analogy with his point about grammar and its use and value in communication skills. It's really the point and purpose of music theory - it's a framwork for communicating musical ideas and principles and a tool useful (to a greater or lesser extent) for learning. It is debatable whether knowledge of theory can help you to become a better (more expressive) player, but even as a purely intellectual pursuit, the subject has merit and validity.

Whether theory is a viable vehicle or not, I think we all agree that making better music is our goal. If theory helps some of us with that goal, then our purpose is well served here. If not, then it's good to remember that some people just enjoy crossword puzzles for the challenge or the fun of it. So, there is no point in insisting that solving crossword puzzles will not improve your communication skills.

One more thing - scales are sets of notes with certain, defined interval relationships. As a practical matter, we speak of "playing a scale" when we really mean "playing notes from a scale," and that meaning should be assumed in any discussion of "playing scales." No one is advocating making music only by playing scales in sequence from one degree to another degree, up and down the scale. "Play this scale" is simply a short way of saying "play notes from this scale." It gets confusing when you play just a note or two from one scale which happen to be "outside" the key of the moment but which happen to be "inside" of another, "proper" scale choice for the key.

If all this is too confusing or boring, just remember: if it don't sound good, then don't play it (or cover your ears).

[Aeolian]

Just got back from seeing the Steve Kimock band in the city and saw this thread degenerating into a "soul" vs. "academics" thing again.

Please allow me to posit that some "from the heart" players get just as boring as Diorio, constantly wanking on one note or the same riff all night. One dimensionality is not a virtue, whether it's being solely wrapped around "playing with feeling" or only playing clever notes. Another common thing I find with "feeling only" players is that they tend to try and cram every note down your throat. Kimock was so refreshing tonight with his patience. He played clever altered runs at times, he played interesting chords at times, he even dug in and got on top of the music at times. But he didn't do any of these all the time. I do admit that I would have liked a bit more fire but that's a matter of taste. I respect that he is able to hold back and play melodies. And make up new ones all night long.

A friend was studying with a renouned teacher and got this interesting assignment. He was given a set of changes and told to write out a solo without playing or listening to the changes first. Write a solo from theoretical understanding, learn to play it, and play it for the teacher. I can hear the "soul" players screaming already. Wait. The objective was not to come up with a solo for the stage. The objective was to break out of the familiar, the things that lay easy on the fretboard. To come up with some fresh ideas to add to the vocabulary. Other folks get the same results playing sax transcriptions. And some get it by considering scale substitutions. However you do it, the idea is to expand your horizons and not play the same familiar licks all night long.

When Kirk dropped in with some other melodic minor substitutions, I turned on a vamp in Band in the Box and started trying them. Some turned out to be things I had already stumbled on. A couple sounded really cool and if I practice until grouping all those notes against a particular chord gets comfortable, I may be able to invent melodies with those flavors. I get tired of Strawberry all the time. Thanks to some of the folks here who have worked on this, there's an opportunity to find some new flavors to mix together.
_________________
There are no such things as wrong notes, there's only the look on your face.
My Stuff: www.stevekirbymusic.com

[juspasinby2003]

Here's an example of how a little theory knowledge helped me to analyze, understand, and use something I gleaned from Robben's brilliant solo in one of my favorite songs, "Daydreamin'." (written by Dewayne Pate)

At exactly time 3:06, Robben plays the following line as the progression goes from the minor I (Bmin7) to the IV (E9) via the altered passing chord, (B7(#5)). Over the passing chord, Robben plays:

E||------------------------------7----10----7------------------
B||-------------------------8----------------------10-----------
G||-------------7----8-------------------------------------------
D||--9----10----------------------------------------------------
A||---------------------------------------------------------------
E||--------------------------------------------------------------

This follows the "rule" that Kirk notes above about playing the altered melodic minor over a Dom7(#5) as follows ("altered melodic minor" means simply melodic minor 1/2 step up):

"Dom7 Alt -(#5 or b13) Melodic minor up 1/2 step"

Now, I could have picked the line up by ear, but, by knowing this much theory, I can now extend the line or change it up any way I like knowing that it will work well if my line is within the scale. Of course, not every combination of notes from the scale will sound "melodic," but the point is that I am in a far better position to learn the line and change it any way I like.

Because I know where it comes from, I can do different things with it. I still have to practice improvising lines from the scale, but I don't have to reinvent the wheel (figure out which notes work and which don't) to use other notes from the scale to add variety while maintaining the same tonality. It's the tonality that I like here, but I don't want to play the same line every time. Again, I could do it "by ear" but it would take much more effort and time to accomplish.

[telefunk1]

What a great thread, but isn't our real objective in playing guitar to get chicks? So, do we get more chicks through "theory" or through playing with "feeling"? This requires empirical testing so we need a grant to really study this important question. And chicks, we need chicks...

Seriously (no wait, I was serious) this thread has been great because it really is one of those trick questions for which there is no real true answer. I have said it before here that balance is the key, which is what RFs playing has in spades. He makes both sides of the equation work together. There are very few players out there that can do that.

Couple of specific comments. Bill, I think your 2 questions are accurate - the guitar world is bombarded with instructional stuff these days, all advertised to make wailing wanker monster players out of us, as if that is a legitimate goal, and also that since "feeling" or "soul" can't really be taught we need to load up on the stuff that can be taught (and sold). It makes one a little weary at times.

A - love the lesson story about creating something based on knowledge rather than slipping into comfortable patterns. Shaking things up and moving beyond the familiar often takes such measures. I have my own take on this approach. Since I do not read, and am a basic theory moron, I break away from the patterns by leaving the guitar alone, focusing on a riff or solo or pattern in my head and then work through it with a combination of visualization, singing the riff to myself, and thinking in terms of intervals. For me this has been a very effective way to break outside my routine. And I think it benefits my playing because it slows me down in order to sing and think about the riff. First time I did this (years ago with Jeff Beck's "Situation" I remember it well) it was the coolest thing, but I had to go back over why it worked for me in order to replicate it.

I have been working on a couple of old Pat Metheny songs to arrange for a 3 piece (kind of tough without Lyle Mays in the background) and I borrowed a copy of his complete charts. Interesting comment in the book - he says that he is putting his music out there for people to learn, but that he really hopes to hear people take his stuff different places. So, he is saying, here is what I did, but you take it somewhere else, don't just repeat what I did. To me, this is what I am trying to get at as a player - take what has been done, whether it be scales or tunes or whatever, and build on it, make connections to the past but think ahead. There are a lot of things out there to help do this, but putting them together is the really tricky part.

As with anything, I think the phrase "whatever floats your boat" sums this up pretty well. Again, great thread and the beauty of the internet is that we can all learn something from each other through this forum, even if we disagree.

All this from another grumpy old fart, and proud of it!

[Bluelobster]

Let's say you are playing a minor blues in A , , while in D- minor (IV)
think B-b5 , E7 alt , (II,V) before switching back to I (A-), so the scales would be C melodix minor (But starting on the B) mixed with Eb alt ,
Bear in mind that according the tempo, or the style of the song, or the fact you never work your ear , or the way you overdrive your tone or the fact you never work music at all and if you drink or smoke , the severe alterations would come out of your mind not from the chords tone.
I'll be back.

[kirk95]

[Bluelobster]

thanks for correcting me captain,

if i think B-7b5 the scale would be D-melodic not C .

Where am i at ??????????????????????????????

[kirk95]

When in doubt go chromatic!

Truth is you can play anything over any chord as long as you set it up correctly and resolve it correctly.....
_________________
www.hendersounds.com
http://soundcloud.com/davidhenderson
Please Donate - Keep These Forums Alive

[juspasinby2003]

THANK YOU, BLOB AND KIRK!

This stuff is so cool! I'm learning more from this thread than I ever imagined. Now, practicing this stuff is another matter, but I think there's gold to be mined here with enough work. If I could just program these little led's on my fretboard to flash the sequence a little slower....

[Bluelobster]

[Bill Morgan]

I just wanted to take a minute to apologize to everyone for being a grumpy old fart (can't help being what I am), and to thank everyone for making this thread, and this forum in general, so worthwhile and informative. I realize it's expecting a lot for a bunch of guitar players to act like adults, but it seems to be working here. David is to be commended for pulling this cast of characters together and making it work so well. I hope we can keep this up for a long time to come.

Cheers.

Bill

[Bluelobster]

What a cool name for a new section , don't you feel ?

Hey Bill please don't apologize , it's cool to have someone mumbling & grumping in a corner . Kind of a guardian of the ancesters .

Sooner i'll enter in the 50 club : an other oberfartgrumpyfurher