"Musicality" & What Makes a Great Chord Progression?

And as far as that 13th chord with the root on the low E string goes, IMO the thumb is the way to go. Not only can you dampen the A string a lot better than with the "half-lifted flesh" of your index finger (or the tip of your middle finger), no, in case there's a bass, you can easily just play the thing as if nothing ever happened by just leaving the thumb out. Also adds one more finger for further adventures (should you want to, say, make a Bb/b13/#9 out of that chord (for which there might be pretty good reasons...).
 
Sascha Franck said:
Fwiw, here's a quick shot on that "Rikki..." solo from yours truly. Backing slapped together quite quickly, but it works for noodling purposes.
Click to expand...

Nice effort.(y)
In your context you can better tell how those changes are tricky. Tricky in the sense of making it flow properly without sounding forced.

I think Baxter's take works great because it starts with a vocal quality in the first 3 bars, with vibrato and phrasing. Other than a few runs and double stops it's a very vocal solo altogether.
 
Sascha Franck said:
And as far as that 13th chord with the root on the low E string goes, IMO the thumb is the way to go. Not only can you dampen the A string a lot better than with the "half-lifted flesh" of your index finger (or the tip of your middle finger), no, in case there's a bass, you can easily just play the thing as if nothing ever happened by just leaving the thumb out. Also adds one more finger for further adventures (should you want to, say, make a Bb/b13/#9 out of that chord (for which there might be pretty good reasons...).
Click to expand...
I do it more with my index because I like to slide those shapes sharp or flat and the timbre of the thumb over the low E string is not as defining as I'd like it to be when playing a bit faster. So it's a mix of comfort, tone, execution that I do it that way mostly. I will use my thumb when the root changes a half step. Something like this:
X
5
5
4
X
5

X
5
5
4
X
4
 
FuzzyAce said:
I think Baxter's take works great because it starts with a vocal quality in the first 3 bars, with vibrato and phrasing.
Click to expand...

To be honest, the only parts I like in his solo are those before the G chord turns up. After that it's falling apart at least somewhat for me and more like some "whoops, that chord" affair, there's no continuous thread through it all anymore.
But then, I actually happen to like less Steely Dan guitar solos than most guitarists seem to do - which has likely to do with the parts they come up with to solo over. Take "Kid Charlemagne". I sort of like the composition/arrangement. I also like Carlton and his playing in general. And I like the end solo. But the main solo is something making me not listen to the tune. It's like "inaccessable" or whatever one might say. Just doesn't flow naturally. At least not for me (and I'm defenitely not unfamiliar with more complexed harmony and stuff). Fwiw, I don't even like Jay Graydon's solo on "Peg", which gets a truckload of reputation.
And just before someone gets at me: I can both understand why people like these solos and I can as well appreciate their value in a music-historical context. After all, these were bringing jazz and fusion vibes to pop music, which was quite an achievement (see La Szum's and your posts about SD's achievments in general - which I totally agree with). It's just not for me.
 
Sascha Franck said:
To be honest, the only parts I like in his solo are those before the G chord turns up. After that it's falling apart at least somewhat for me and more like some "whoops, that chord" affair, there's no continuous thread through it all anymore.
But then, I actually happen to like less Steely Dan guitar solos than most guitarists seem to do - which has likely to do with the parts they come up with to solo over. Take "Kid Charlemagne". I sort of like the composition/arrangement. I also like Carlton and his playing in general. And I like the end solo. But the main solo is something making me not listen to the tune. It's like "inaccessable" or whatever one might say. Just doesn't flow naturally. At least not for me (and I'm defenitely not unfamiliar with more complexed harmony and stuff). Fwiw, I don't even like Jay Graydon's solo on "Peg", which gets a truckload of reputation.
And just before someone gets at me: I can both understand why people like these solos and I can as well appreciate their value in a music-historical context. After all, these were bringing jazz and fusion vibes to pop music, which was quite an achievement (see La Szum's and your posts about SD's achievments in general - which I totally agree with). It's just not for me.
Click to expand...
No, I totally get it. We all are drawn to different styles and harmonic content. Kid Charlemagne is certainly a more 'correct' solo compared to Rikki, and I do like it too, but I can see where it may be a disconnect with some listeners. It has a more 'angular' approach to it.
 
Sascha Franck said:
To be honest, the only parts I like in his solo are those before the G chord turns up. After that it's falling apart at least somewhat for me and more like some "whoops, that chord" affair, there's no continuous thread through it all anymore.
But then, I actually happen to like less Steely Dan guitar solos than most guitarists seem to do - which has likely to do with the parts they come up with to solo over. Take "Kid Charlemagne". I sort of like the composition/arrangement. I also like Carlton and his playing in general. And I like the end solo. But the main solo is something making me not listen to the tune. It's like "inaccessable" or whatever one might say. Just doesn't flow naturally. At least not for me (and I'm defenitely not unfamiliar with more complexed harmony and stuff). Fwiw, I don't even like Jay Graydon's solo on "Peg", which gets a truckload of reputation.
And just before someone gets at me: I can both understand why people like these solos and I can as well appreciate their value in a music-historical context. After all, these were bringing jazz and fusion vibes to pop music, which was quite an achievement (see La Szum's and your posts about SD's achievments in general - which I totally agree with). It's just not for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what kills that band for me even more are the vocals
 
You need to do something the listener is not expecting. And make that work. Music theory might be super handy here because it provides you will many possibilities to find chords for melodies and vice versa. And when you know theory it is easy to break thing, to find the weird stuff.
 
There is literally no such thing as a wrong note if you intended to play it . Bad choice? Yes but actually wrong meaning it was not the intention. Learn harmony and find tunes you like with key changes and non diatonic chord progressions and work out what the scale choices were used and play different improvisations over them with the same scales and then alternative ones that still come from the progression. There are lots of ways that theory can help when your knowledge of harmony is not working for you. You can write out a scale change chart that steps away from your comfort zone and see what you can do with it. Record a simple rhythm and see what happens or try to compose a vocal style melody over it.
 
Last edited:
IMHO, scales and modes are more important than chords. Learn a scale really well, and you'll just discover chords by playing various combinations of notes within the scale. Stick to the scale? Your stuff is always going to sound diatonic and tonal, and you're increasing your likelihood of finding something you like. The rest is improvisation, memorisation, and taste.
 
Orvillain said:
IMHO, scales and modes are more important than chords. Learn a scale really well, and you'll just discover chords by playing various combinations of notes within the scale. Stick to the scale? Your stuff is always going to sound diatonic and tonal, and you're increasing your likelihood of finding something you like. The rest is improvisation, memorisation, and taste.
Click to expand...

While I don’t put that into practice, I agree. Eric Johnson is pretty stellar with his approach in that regard-

 
Orvillain said:
IMHO, scales and modes are more important than chords. Learn a scale really well, and you'll just discover chords by playing various combinations of notes within the scale. Stick to the scale? Your stuff is always going to sound diatonic and tonal, and you're increasing your likelihood of finding something you like. The rest is improvisation, memorisation, and taste.
Click to expand...
for me it’s the other way around.
Chords and hone connects to the next lets you hear its relationship more than the scale.

Also the diatonic thing can bite you in the ass fast.
For example guys riding the note f against a C or Am in the key of C since it’s diatonic.

If you want safe pentatonic or major without the 4/ aeolian without the ♭6.

As for modes, seeing that they all can be generated from the ole major scale and then it’s just find Waldo time I’d spent more time on that.
Say you go something like a D7♯11 in a C tune.
Where your scale choice normally be d e f g a b c (D Dorian/C major) I find it easier to alter the C scale to accommodate the chord tones.
D F♯ E G♯ A B C
of course you could just think Lydian dominant or IV in A melodic minor but it has little to do with the original tune and then improve becomes patched together fragments.
 
Ed DeGenaro said:
for me it’s the other way around.
Chords and hone connects to the next lets you hear its relationship more than the scale.

Also the diatonic thing can bite you in the ass fast.
For example guys riding the note f against a C or Am in the key of C since it’s diatonic.

If you want safe pentatonic or major without the 4/ aeolian without the ♭6.

As for modes, seeing that they all can be generated from the ole major scale and then it’s just find Waldo time I’d spent more time on that.
Say you go something like a D7♯11 in a C tune.
Where your scale choice normally be d e f g a b c (D Dorian/C major) I find it easier to alter the C scale to accommodate the chord tones.
D F♯ E G♯ A B C
of course you could just think Lydian dominant or IV in A melodic minor but it has little to do with the original tune and then improve becomes patched together fragments.
Click to expand...
Don't need any of that in order to play Iron Man tho.
 
Note: The following is not strictly on topic but rather theoretical, so it's not necessarily all too connected with whatever creative processes.

Orvillain said:
IMHO, scales and modes are more important than chords.
Click to expand...

If you think about them on a "raw" harmonical or theoretical level, they're all the same, though.
And as this seems to be a rather trivial statement (for obvious reasons), IMO I think it's something worth to keep in mind, simply because it'll make plenty of things more efficient to deal with.

Just a few random things regarding that:

- Theoretically, each chord in a given key could contain any note in that key. You just keep adding diatonic thirds on top of your starting note (hence the root) until you're back at the starting note. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 - and at 15, you went full circle (or rather two full circles, as it'd be the note 2 octaves above your starting point).

- Pretty much the same is true for scales. Just that you don't add thirds on top of the root but seconds instead. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - at 8, we went full circle.

- Obviously, the 2, 4, and 6 notes of the scale are the same notes as the 9, 11 and 13 of the chord. Sure, they're divided by an octave, but once we get into any real talk (as in playing those notes), we will bounce those buggers around by octaves around as we see fit.

- There's some "avoid notes" in chords (in quotes because there's no really strict rules, just to get that out of the way), typically creating dissonances (most notably b9 intervals, even if there's exceptions - see "no strict rules"). Such as the 11 on a major chord. Which is the same note as the 4th in a scalar context. Which is precisely why it's a decent thing to avoid that very 4th as a target note, too.

- Things get even more clear when you think about certain playing techniques. Blistering fast sweep picking of arpeggios - doesn't that rather sound like a chord than a scalar thing? Cluster chords played arpeggiated - don't they just sound like a scale played legato?

- The note D on top of a C root is a 2nd/9th, no matter whether you play it in a scalar or chordal context.

- Personally, I even tend to think of chords as modes (so to say) in case they're treated as an entity of their own (which is what modes are all about). Any Xm7/13 for me is a dorian chord. Any X7/9 is a mixolydian chord (at least for now and for the sake of this explanation, there's variations on both the dorian and the mixolydian theme, of course).

Oh yes, there's still some differences between chords and scales that are pretty well distinguishable (the borders are soft/blurred, though), but on a theoretical level, there's no differences.
Scales usually aren't strummed, chords don't make up for great melodies (but what if we harmonize those melodies? As said, it's all blurred...). So there's technical differences between them, even quite some. Still, once you're aware of the things they have in common, quite some things are easier to deal with, IMO at least (see "avoid notes" for example).
 
Last edited:
Sascha Franck said:
Note: The following is not strictly on topic but rather theoretical, so it's not necessarily all too connected with whatever creative processes.



If you think about them on a "raw" harmonical or theoretical level, they're all the same, though.
And as this seems to be a rather trivial statement (for obvious reasons), IMO I think it's something worth to keep in mind, simply because it'll make plenty of things more efficient to deal with.

Just a few random things regarding that:

- Theoretically, each chord in a given key could contain any note in that key. You just keep adding diatonic thirds on top of your starting note (hence the root) until you're back at the starting note. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 - and at 15, you went full circle (or rather two full circles, as it'd be the note 2 octaves above your starting point).

- Pretty much the same is true for scales. Just that you don't add thirds on top of the root but seconds instead. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - at 8, we went full circle.

- Obviously, the 2, 4, and 6 notes of the scale are the same notes as the 9, 11 and 13 of the chord. Sure, they're divided by an octave, but once we get into any real talk (as in playing those notes), we will bounce those buggers around by octaves around as we see fit.

- There's some "avoid notes" in chords (in quotes because there's no really strict rules, just to get that out of the way), typically creating dissonances (most notably b9 intervals, even if there's exceptions - see "no strict rules"). Such as the 11 on a major chord. Which is the same note as the 4th in a scalar context. Which is precisely why it's a decent thing to avoid that very 4th as a target note, too.

- Things get even more clear when you think about certain playing techniques. Blistering fast sweep picking of arpeggios - doesn't that rather sound like a chord than a scalar thing? Cluster chords played arpeggiated - don't they just sound like a scale played legato?

- The note D on top of a C root is a 2nd/9th, no matter whether you play it in a scalar or chordal context.

- Personally, I even tend to think of chords as modes (so to say) in case they're treated as an entity of their own (which is what modes are all about). Any Xm7/13 for me is a dorian chord. Any X7/9 is a mixolydian chord (at least for now and for the sake of this explanation, there's variations on both the dorian and the mixolydian theme, of course).

Oh yes, there's still some differences between chords and scales that are pretty well distinguishable (the borders are soft/blurred, though), but on a theoretical level, there's no differences.
Scales usually aren't strummed, chords don't make up for great melodies (but what if we harmonize those melodies? As said, it's all blurred...). So there's technical differences between them, even quite some. Still, once you're aware of the things they have in common, quite some things are easier to deal with, IMO at least (see "avoid notes" for example).
Click to expand...
Well until we get from diatonic stuff to modern stuff.
Where instead of say stacking a triad on top of a tetrad (like D on top of 7 to get C13#11) we stack 2 tetrads.
Like C7 + D△7 + Fø7 and you get stuff like a C7♯23
 
Sascha Franck said:
Note: The following is not strictly on topic but rather theoretical, so it's not necessarily all too connected with whatever creative processes.



If you think about them on a "raw" harmonical or theoretical level, they're all the same, though.
And as this seems to be a rather trivial statement (for obvious reasons), IMO I think it's something worth to keep in mind, simply because it'll make plenty of things more efficient to deal with.

Just a few random things regarding that:

- Theoretically, each chord in a given key could contain any note in that key. You just keep adding diatonic thirds on top of your starting note (hence the root) until you're back at the starting note. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 - and at 15, you went full circle (or rather two full circles, as it'd be the note 2 octaves above your starting point).

- Pretty much the same is true for scales. Just that you don't add thirds on top of the root but seconds instead. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - at 8, we went full circle.

- Obviously, the 2, 4, and 6 notes of the scale are the same notes as the 9, 11 and 13 of the chord. Sure, they're divided by an octave, but once we get into any real talk (as in playing those notes), we will bounce those buggers around by octaves around as we see fit.

- There's some "avoid notes" in chords (in quotes because there's no really strict rules, just to get that out of the way), typically creating dissonances (most notably b9 intervals, even if there's exceptions - see "no strict rules"). Such as the 11 on a major chord. Which is the same note as the 4th in a scalar context. Which is precisely why it's a decent thing to avoid that very 4th as a target note, too.

- Things get even more clear when you think about certain playing techniques. Blistering fast sweep picking of arpeggios - doesn't that rather sound like a chord than a scalar thing? Cluster chords played arpeggiated - don't they just sound like a scale played legato?

- The note D on top of a C root is a 2nd/9th, no matter whether you play it in a scalar or chordal context.

- Personally, I even tend to think of chords as modes (so to say) in case they're treated as an entity of their own (which is what modes are all about). Any Xm7/13 for me is a dorian chord. Any X7/9 is a mixolydian chord (at least for now and for the sake of this explanation, there's variations on both the dorian and the mixolydian theme, of course).

Oh yes, there's still some differences between chords and scales that are pretty well distinguishable (the borders are soft/blurred, though), but on a theoretical level, there's no differences.
Scales usually aren't strummed, chords don't make up for great melodies (but what if we harmonize those melodies? As said, it's all blurred...). So there's technical differences between them, even quite some. Still, once you're aware of the things they have in common, quite some things are easier to deal with, IMO at least (see "avoid notes" for example).
Click to expand...
Thanks Sascha, you've basically summed up my approach/outlook as well. Especially the bolded section. But as you say, there are no hard rules but these are helpful ways to visualize the fretboard and create a melodic theme.
 
For me as a theory novice, even though I've lived in the world where it's necessary and fumbled my way through, it's all about learning just enough to link the parts that aren't related in an interesting and clever way.

I dance between the art, and the theory....for preservation of the creation...the mystery....the spark.....this is the magik place....I smile here.

Learn enough to understand the bigger picture ..but not ruin the surprise.

It's a war.
 
likitlikeyoulikeit said:
For me as a theory novice, even though I've lived in the world where it's necessary and fumbled my way through, it's all about learning just enough to link the parts that aren't related in an interesting and clever way.

I dance between the art, and the theory....for preservation of the creation...the mystery....the spark.....this is the magik place....I smile here.

Learn enough to understand the bigger picture ..but not ruin the surprise.

It's a war.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are strong thoughts in either direction -- knowledge is power or lack of knowledge is power, creatively speaking. That's the beauty of music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Question about Intervals
14 15 16
Replies
303
Views
3K
PLX
PLX
HomespunEffects
Started guitar lessons on Thursday …
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
mercifulfuzziness
mercifulfuzziness
mavrick102000
Theory Question (Chord Progression)
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Ed DeGenaro
Ed DeGenaro
Abe
Guitar Lessons, Tips, Techniques, Etc. Online on YouTube or elsewhere? Reading, charts, videos and whatnot.
Replies
11
Views
465
eupbin01
E
Whizzinby
The Shreddening
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
2K
Byrdman
Byrdman
Back
Top