Playing across the chord vs. playing scales

Hi,
Was watching that old guitar tutorial Brian presented and he said it is rare for him to play scales and prefers to play across a chord.

What does he mean by this? For example is a chord progression is C F G, does he mean that he would simply play a C major scale he would focus on the individual chords themselves?

Thanks!

you can play scales over chords instead of playing them separately, see this [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr6QVMRmvLg]video[/url] for further info.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr6QVMRmvLg

It's difficult to explain unless you're fairly well-versed in the basics of music theory.

Let's say we've got a simple 8-bar song in C major that only uses the C, F and G chords (all major) to harmonize a melody. The chord progression might be something like this (with | indicating a bar line):

| C | F | C | G |
| C | C | G | C |

Now, if you were to do a solo over these chords, you could do a number of things, but we'll stick to the two options in the original question. The 'classical' approach would be to say: the whole thing is in C major, so I will use the C-major scale to solo. Over the C-chords I'll avoid the note F (the 4th, which clashes [is dissonant] with the third, the note E, which defines the chord as major), over the F-chords I'll avoid the B (same thing) and over the G-chords I'll avoid the C (overly simplified, but it'll do). I'll start playing on either a C or a G and I'll finish on a C. The chords will be what we call 'functional' here (from the term "functional harmony"): every chord belongs to a certain degree of the scale and serves to emphasize how a melody is moving towards or away from the tonic (in this case, the note C).

The other approach would be what you might call the 'modal approach': you take the same chord progression, but don't interpret it as a single 8-bar passage in C major, but as a series of 8 sonorities (note: this approach works better if the chords don't change too quickly - the slower the so-called 'harmonic rhythm' [i.e., every how many beats the chord changes] the better this approach works because if the chords change quickly, you don't have time to establish each chord as a 'sonority' in the ear of the listener).

Now it gets technical. Let's take the scale of C major:
C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C

C, the first note, is now the tonic, F, the fourth, is the subdominant, G is the dominant (all other degrees of the scale also have a name/function, but I'm not going into that here)

The three primary chords, C, F and G, all fit nicely in this scale. We can rearrange the order of the notes to put the whole scale in the form of a chord:
C major: C-E-G - B - D - F - A (- C)
F major: F-A-C - E - G - B - D (- F)
G major: G-B-D - F - A - C - E (- G)

Now, each note doesn't have a "function" as a degree of the scale (like dominant or tonic), but each note does have a position as a chord-extension. When playing the F-major chord, the note G is no longer the dominant of the scale, it is now the 9th of the chord: it doesn't serve to indicate an approach to the tonic C, but it adds a very specific kind of tension to the F-major chord.

Now, so far, the difference between the "functional" and the "sonorous" approach is purely theoretical - however, as you probably know, the octave doesn't have seven different notes, but twelve. Five of them don't belong in the scale. In the case of the C major scale (CDEFGABC) these five are: C#/Db - D#/Eb - F#/Gb - G#/Ab - A#/Bb, or the black keys on the piano. In functional harmony, these are simply dissonances that are 'alien' or 'distant' to the key of the song - if they occur at all, they must occur on the weak beats and resolve to a consonance on the very next emphasized beat.

However, when you take the modal/sonorous approach, these notes can make up part of a chord without necessarily occurring on a weak beat and resolving to a consonance on the next emphasized beat - for instance, while the accompaniment is playing F major (F-A-C) in the second bar, you could 'superimpose' the notes Eb-G-Bb (the Eb major chord if occurring by itself) onto this chord, then (just as an example) move either to E-G-C (C-major) to resolve on the next chord, or keep up the tension by, for instance, playing G-B-D (a G major chords by itself), which, over the C-chord, would now mean you've turned it into:
C-E-G (1-3-5) G-B-D (5-7-9) - a Cmaj9 chord.

It's very complicated to explain but much more straightforward to use. To summarize, it's a different way to interpret the same notes/chords of a song in such a way as to make improvisation more independent from the chord-progression. So it's easier to come up with lines that don't sound predictable, and on many instruments like the guitar, it's easier to tell "where you are" in your playing because you're dealing with chord fingerings, which is what most guitarists tend to play most, rather than scale positions.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

It's difficult to explain unless you're fairly well-versed in the basics of music theory.

Let's say we've got a simple 8-bar song in C major that only uses the C, F and G chords (all major) to harmonize a melody. The chord progression might be something like this (with | indicating a bar line):

| C | F | C | G |
| C | C | G | C |

Now, if you were to do a solo over these chords, you could do a number of things, but we'll stick to the two options in the original question. The 'classical' approach would be to say: the whole thing is in C major, so I will use the C-major scale to solo. Over the C-chords I'll avoid the note F (the 4th, which clashes [is dissonant] with the third, the note E, which defines the chord as major), over the F-chords I'll avoid the B (same thing) and over the G-chords I'll avoid the C (overly simplified, but it'll do). I'll start playing on either a C or a G and I'll finish on a C. The chords will be what we call 'functional' here (from the term "functional harmony"): every chord belongs to a certain degree of the scale and serves to emphasize how a melody is moving towards or away from the tonic (in this case, the note C).

The other approach would be what you might call the 'modal approach': you take the same chord progression, but don't interpret it as a single 8-bar passage in C major, but as a series of 8 sonorities (note: this approach works better if the chords don't change too quickly - the slower the so-called 'harmonic rhythm' [i.e., every how many beats the chord changes] the better this approach works because if the chords change quickly, you don't have time to establish each chord as a 'sonority' in the ear of the listener).

Now it gets technical. Let's take the scale of C major:
C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C

C, the first note, is now the tonic, F, the fourth, is the subdominant, G is the dominant (all other degrees of the scale also have a name/function, but I'm not going into that here)

The three primary chords, C, F and G, all fit nicely in this scale. We can rearrange the order of the notes to put the whole scale in the form of a chord:
C major: C-E-G - B - D - F - A (- C)
F major: F-A-C - E - G - B - D (- F)
G major: G-B-D - F - A - C - E (- G)

Now, each note doesn't have a "function" as a degree of the scale (like dominant or tonic), but each note does have a position as a chord-extension. When playing the F-major chord, the note G is no longer the dominant of the scale, it is now the 9th of the chord: it doesn't serve to indicate an approach to the tonic C, but it adds a very specific kind of tension to the F-major chord.

Now, so far, the difference between the "functional" and the "sonorous" approach is purely theoretical - however, as you probably know, the octave doesn't have seven different notes, but twelve. Five of them don't belong in the scale. In the case of the C major scale (CDEFGABC) these five are: C#/Db - D#/Eb - F#/Gb - G#/Ab - A#/Bb, or the black keys on the piano. In functional harmony, these are simply dissonances that are 'alien' or 'distant' to the key of the song - if they occur at all, they must occur on the weak beats and resolve to a consonance on the very next emphasized beat.

However, when you take the modal/sonorous approach, these notes can make up part of a chord without necessarily occurring on a weak beat and resolving to a consonance on the next emphasized beat - for instance, while the accompaniment is playing F major (F-A-C) in the second bar, you could 'superimpose' the notes Eb-G-Bb (the Eb major chord if occurring by itself) onto this chord, then (just as an example) move either to E-G-C (C-major) to resolve on the next chord, or keep up the tension by, for instance, playing G-B-D (a G major chords by itself), which, over the C-chord, would now mean you've turned it into:
C-E-G (1-3-5) G-B-D (5-7-9) - a Cmaj9 chord.

It's very complicated to explain but much more straightforward to use. To summarize, it's a different way to interpret the same notes/chords of a song in such a way as to make improvisation more independent from the chord-progression. So it's easier to come up with lines that don't sound predictable, and on many instruments like the guitar, it's easier to tell "where you are" in your playing because you're dealing with chord fingerings, which is what most guitarists tend to play most, rather than scale positions.[/QUOTE]

Yawn

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Someone gives a detailed explanation to the question and people whine about that. Good job.

To ThomasQuinn,

This is probably the most thorough, honest and musically sound answer I've read on this forum. I for one really appreciate this. Thanks for the explanation. I may use this for my own teaching purposes and will give credit where it is due. Really we'll written and makes complete sense.

Thanks again!

Very well put Thomas, thanks for taking your time.

[QUOTE] [b]una999 wrote:[/b]
Yawn[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]master marathon runner wrote:[/b]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[/QUOTE]

Amazing... Those of us who don't understand the theory should at least appreciate that Brian's understanding of it is the foundation for his playing which we so love.

/\ lighten up fellas, it's called humor. I don't doubt the skill and knowledge of thomasquinn's post for one moment, in fact, congratulations and well done. But not everyone has the time, inclination or patience to pore over the theory and digest it, life's to hectic and busy.
Come on , ' zzzzzzzzzz' is hardly gut wrenchenly cheeky, - it's just for comic effect man, like I say.........lighten up.!

^ but it's sad that it comes to that. There aren't many music forums where a post like that would generate numerous immature and troll-ish responses. In most equivalent places for equally big bands such an answer would be celebrated, turning into a wonderful discussion.

But on a side note - why is it considered funny to frown upon intellectuals who provide picture perfect answers to difficult questions?

I guess it's the same reason why more people watch Honey Boo Boo than Cosmos.

Thanks very much for your detailed answer.

/ It's not "frowning upon", it's great British humor. Haven't you heard of Blackadder, Monty Python, the Young Ones, et all, why , even the carry on films get namechecked in Bo Rhap.
Such a sensitive lot. Crikey.

[QUOTE] [b]master marathon runner wrote:[/b]

/ It's not "frowning upon", it's great British humor. Haven't you heard of Blackadder, Monty Python, the Young Ones, et all, why , even the carry on films get namechecked in Bo Rhap.
Such a sensitive lot. Crikey.[/QUOTE]

That is a post of such execrable bollocks that I don't even know where to start.

/Start by reading the last line again.