Help....

[Aron Alexandrine]

Hi. Umm... I play the guitar and I write songs every now and then. But I have a huge problem, I'm more of a rythem guy I play mostly chords so I always base my songs and I find that a weakness in myself. I try to make solo's or background solo's but I have trouble with it. I understand the chord progression and how I should pluk a note in a solo according to the chord for the song but I just can't! example a song made of C-G-Am-F chord and I need to base a solo according to them I have trouble and I start to go mad. If anyone has advice please say it.

[Stenir]

There are a few ways to go about this, but this is the approach that I used when first starting out.

Say each chord of the C G Am F progression is a full measure long. So we have four measures. For each measure, choose a note to be the whole note for the measure. Then start working down to shorter note durations.

You said you are a ryhthm guy, right? Come up with a simple ryhthm, and fit the notes to the rhythm as you go. Don't make it too hard. Go from whole notes to half to quarters, etc. See where that gets you.

[Ron Ofir]

Learn solos. Find some solos you like (what kind of music do you like? Rock, Hard Rock, Pop?) and learn them. Try to analyse them, find the calls and response, pick some phrases you like and play them over and over again, and then start playing around with them: use more bends, slides, whatever floats your boat.

Also, you could buy/rent a guitar lesson video, Marty Friedman's "Melodic Control" or John Petrucci's "Rock Discipline" (I'm not sure that's how it's called) come to mind. You can probably also find those in YouTube or Google Videos.

Good Luck!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Aron Alexandrine

Hi. Umm... I play the guitar and I write songs every now and then. But I have a huge problem, I'm more of a rythem guy I play mostly chords so I always base my songs and I find that a weakness in myself. I try to make solo's or background solo's but I have trouble with it. I understand the chord progression and how I should pluk a note in a solo according to the chord for the song but I just can't! example a song made of C-G-Am-F chord and I need to base a solo according to them I have trouble and I start to go mad. If anyone has advice please say it.

Aron.

How's you're theory? Do you know what notes are in each of those chords (you say you do, but for the benefit of other readers and maybe you as well)?

If so, for example, you can typically play any note of each chord and you'll be safe. For example, with F being F A C, you can play an F, an A, a C, or any combination of those over an F chord.

Do you know your keys and scales?
The above progression is in the key of C. In a general sense, you can play any notes in the key (C D E F G A and they will work. There's more to it than this of course but what you can do for example, is play a chord's note on the down beat, and a note that's not in the chord on the upbeat to connect to the next chord. For example:
C-E-G; G-B-D; A-C-E; F-A-C

If you start on G, you could play
C A* | G F* | E D* | C

The * notes are not part of the chord you're playing, but they smoothly connect to the next note which will be.

The first one, A is called a neighbor tone (or auxilliary) and the rest are called passing tones.

HTH,
Steve

[Aron Alexandrine]

WOW! thx guys. thx a bunch to you Stevel. I came up actually now with something very simple to get to teach me self pluking and stuff. I used to chords C major and A minor, and I pluk them using pull offs and bends I came up with a very sweet melody and I based my new lyrics to it. It sound amazing in my opinion (for me it sounds good cause this is my first solo and stuff xD) and I can't wait to record it and show it to you guys!

[chckn8r]

To get a bit deeper into this, another way to look at this is using the concept of chord notes, "available tension" notes (notes available to you that won't introduce any odd dissonance) and "avoid" notes (notes that can be used melodically as passing notes, but shouldn't be used harmonically - in a melody if landed on or emphasized, they will most likely sound dissonant in context).

Each chord can be extended to be a four note chord (adding the seventh) - those four notes are the "chord tones". To figure out what the avoid and available tones are, you have to look at the scale the chord is from. I won't confuse things by getting into modes and all, but simply, take the root of the chord and play (using the key you're in) a scale from root to root.

So, if you're looking at a chord based on A in the key of C, you have a A minor chord (A,C,E) - add the seventh (G) and you have the four chord tones.

The "avoid" notes are (for simplicity sake) the notes that occur a half-step above a chord tone - or tones that, if used, destroy the function of the chord. For the chord A, F is an avoid note, because it's a half-step above the chord tone 'E' - it can be played in the melody as long as it's typically used as a passing tone.

The &"available tensions" are B and D - they can be used to "spice up" the chord in a harmonic sense or as key melodic elements. Don't know if this helps or muddies things up. Cheers, D

[Stenir]

I wouldn't say that D is a tension tone in C. F and B are tense, in my opinion, but I think that's because I'm viewing this from a theory standpoint (at least the word "tension").

The way I usually "find" a melody is by playing different inversions of the same chord. The natural progression comes at that point when moving from one chord to another. So moving from a C chord (build: C E G) to an F chord (C F A) has a different sound to me than a G C E moving to a A C F. Granted, the ear will invariably hear the C as a connection between the two chords, but moving from the G to A or to an F (with the E moving to F or to the fourth above it on A) gives a new thought to the melody.

Sometimes I even have to just play it slower and slower until something "dings" in the back of my head (i.e., I just start to hear the melody).

Perhaps you can try posting an example chord progression you've come up with, and some of us can write a few melodies that would fit such a progression.

[chckn8r]

Originally Posted by Stenir

I wouldn't say that D is a tension tone in C. F and B are tense, in my opinion, but I think that's because I'm viewing this from a theory standpoint (at least the word "tension").

I'm using nomenclature from contemporary theory (Berkley). Chords are seen not as triads, but extended to four note combinations (root, third, fifth and seventh). "Available tension" is the term used for tones from the chord scale that can be played with those chord tones without destroying harmonic intent or creating dissonance. This is from a harmonic standpoint, but it helps in placing melodic notes in harmonic context.

Example of chord, available tension and avoid notes:

In the key of C Major: a CMaj7 chord (from Ionian Scale) - chord tones are C, E, G and B; available tension tones are D and A; and the avoid note is F (semitone above E). Now, if it's a Cmaj7 sus4, then yes, the F is now a chord tone and the E is an avoid tone.

Now take for example, the ii7 chord from the same key: A D-7 chord (from Dorian Scale) - chord tones are D, F, A and C; available tension tones are E and G; and B is an avoid note - even though it's a whole tone above the chord tone A, it would form a tri-tone with F and destroy the subdominant function of the chord.

It's an odd thing to get your head around when coming from classical theory, but I find it helps me when harmonic and melodic consonance is required.

Cheers, D

[Stenir]

Hmm. Contemporary. Nice.

Is there a reason for the extension to four notes as opposed to three for a chord? So a tension tone of A with a C major triad, even though it's an inverted Am7 chord, is considered a C?

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Stenir

Hmm. Contemporary. Nice.

Is there a reason for the extension to four notes as opposed to three for a chord? So a tension tone of A with a C major triad, even though it's an inverted Am7 chord, is considered a C?

We need to be careful about something here: Jazz and "classical" are different styles. They have a lot of similarities which means people often lump them together when talking about "theory", but there are some important distinctions:

In traditional theory, we might say that the triad is the basic unit of harmony, and we might see 7th chords as an "extension" of that.

In Jazz, the triad is not the "basic" unit of harmony - 7th chords and their substitutions are - which basically means 4 note chords.

So Jazz progressions would rarely go C - am - dm - G like a pop song or even Mozart. They would go C6 - am7 - dm7b5 - Gb9, etc. and where traditional harmony extends to the 7th, and less commonly, the 9th, Jazz harmony begins with a 7th and extends to the 9th, 11th and 13th, as well as their octave equivalents (add/sus2, add/sus4, 6 and 6/9 chords, etc.).

So in Jazz, a tonic chords is usually C6 (C-E-G-A) or CM7 (C-E-G-B ) for instance.

Now you've hit upon an interesting thing here, and I'm going to go off on a tangent, so bear with me:

Long ago, harmony was made in consonances. There were "chords" like C-G-A - as long as the upper notes were consonant with the bass note, the harmony was considered stable and usable as a non-dissonant-chord (this would be in the 1300s).

Through the Renaissance, people began to favor sonorities like:
C-E-G
C-E-A
C-E-B (or C-E-G-B ).

These were called "fifth chords", "sixth chords" and "seventh chords" (or more literally, "chords of the fifth" - for example, a diminished triad is a "chord of the small fifth".

In 1725 (or 1722) Rameau published a treatise on harmony which approached chords in a new way - that is, that chords containg the same notes were inversionally related and thus all had the same root. So C-E-G, E-G-C, and G-C-E were all seen as "a C chord" in different inversions. Rameau didn't "invent" this, but he based his ideas in acoustic principles and observing how music was evolving.

So before, C-E-A was a "sixth chord on A", and after, it was a "first inversion a minor".

The problem is, we have been handed this legacy of "chordal thinking" - people today try to make everything a chord, arrange it in thirds, etc. But to be honest, harmony before the CPP era was not tertian-based, it was consonance-based, and there were even consonance-based sonorities (which could be altered to produce dissonances BTW) in use in the CPP era: Ever wonder why they call it a "Neapolitan Sixth" chord, or an "Italian Augmented Sixth" chord, or "parallel sixth" chords? It's not really because their in first inversion - it's because they're based on older sixth chords - non-tertian sonorities.

Even Rameau recognized this duality (tertian-based triads versus traditional consonance-based sonorities) and mentions something he calls a "double root". His philosophy was that if you take the notes E-G-C, the notes produce a "virtual" root of C, not E, so this is a C chord - we still use that philosophy today. But he recognized the power of the 5th as a stability factor (especially since in a tertian system, two 3rds make a 5th). So he looked at A-C-E-G, and C-E-G-A.

Even though in a tertian system, C-E-G-A should be re-ordered to thirds, thus making the root A, he admits that the _sound_ of C-E-G-A seems to rooted on C, and that the "ancients" used this as a sonority on C all the time (and C-E-A as a 6th chord as well).

Now, in CPP theory, every single chord is seen as tertian-based. A few theorists consider the Augmented 6th family to be "rootless" and therefore part of the older system of consonance-based sonorities (though the problem is, they can be re-ordered to make tertian chords, and some people do) - and an even fewer more see things like Neapolitans as not being tertian-based. But regardless of that, they ALWAYS see C-E-G-A as an inversion of am7. Period. It's not until Mahler that we see a "C6" as a final Tonic (Schumann and Schubert start using chords that look like ii7 in first inversion, but in the context are better explained as IVadd6 chords, like F-A-C-D in C Major a little earlier on).

Now, flash forward to Jazz with its use of "extended" sonorities. Following the pre-Rameau philosophy, and even one that Rameau recognized and attempted to account for, C-E-G-A is NOT a first inversion am7, but a C6. It is possible that C-E-G-A might be an am7/C in some limited contexts, but we have to understand the root to be A, not C. If the Root is understood to be C, C-E-G-A is "some type of C chord" just like it was before Rameau!

The word "tensions" is really a Jazz term too. In a sense, they are like non-chord tones of CPP analysis with a few distinctions: Since Jazz considers C-E-G-A a "chord", the A is not a "tension" - it is a chord tone.

In traditional early theory - the 7th was considered a non-chord tone. By the CPP, it was a chord tone, but still a dissonance. By the Jazz age, it was a chord tone, and a "consonance" (not a tension) and then the higher extensions are "tensions" - 9, 11, 13 (and some people distinguish between 9 and b9 or 11 and #11 being tensions).

So in Mozart, if you see C-E-G-A, it's one of couple of things:
Am7 in first inversion
CM with an A non-chord tone (I would use NCT rather than "tension").
am in first inversion with a G non-chord tone

But in Jazz, it's far and away "C6", and rarely Am7/C (context would be really important in making the distinction).

So sorry for the lecture, but maybe there's some information worth having in here, and cause for doing some other research :-)

Best,
Steve