Learning and Memorizing Guitar Scales

[mazza24]

Also if you slide all the Cmaj patterns up 2 FRETS then you get Dmaj.[/quote]


Sorry for my foults.
Also slowly: if I slide all the Cmaj patterns up 2 frets then I get Dmaj with all his 7 modes. OK?

So now (I think) wenn I play the Cmaj on the 10th fret the root is D, I play D Dorian scala and I play all the time Cmaj, but what I conclude is: the the D Dorian scala built the IIm7 chord of the Cmaj scala, E Phrigian the IIIm7 chord and so on until B locrian that built the viim7b5.
OK???

[DMatthewsBand07]

I think you've got it

[mazza24]

Y E E E A A H H H !!!!!!!

[abracadabra]

Isn't it great when you get that 'eureka' moment?!

[mazza24]

Y E S, abracadabra it's a amazing.
You have the emotion to get something wherefore you fight all the time, and now you have it, the mistery, the secret, the inapprehensible are fall.
hahaha WOW!!!!!!!!

[mazza24]

But now is time to realize the whole works.
DON'T DISTURB PLEASE I'M LEARNING (PLAYING)
I see (ear) you next week.
Tks
Antonio

[Claudi]

Isn't it great when you get that 'eureka' moment?!

Really great, man! When we get one of these moments it's when we feel we're better musicians and that makes us go on trying to improve.

[d115]

Reposting in new thread

[pauln]

Im trying to get a grip...

Music theory language comes from the way music is written as standard music notation. Problems with grasping theory language concepts may be solved by understanding how to read music notation. You don't have to read it well enough to play from it, although lots of musicians enjoy learning how to do that.
If you can separate the meanings of note, pitch, degree, and interval from each other and see how scales' and chords' notes are named, proceeding through theory will make much more sense.

Notes - a note is a letter name (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) that corresponds to a line or space in the staff. A single note (e.g., the second line from the bottom of the G clef staff) is "G". All marks (head with tail symbols) on that line are "G". Even if that note is subject to an accidental (# or b) from the key signature or added for that measure, that note is still "G".

Pitch - you see that "G" may take more than one pitch - Gb, G, G#. Looking further, you see that the same pitch may be called by different notes - F#, Gb. It is crucially important that this distinction between notes and pitches is grasped.

Degrees - scales and chords have degrees which are the number counted up from the tonic (of scales) or root (of chords). C major triad degrees are 1 3 5 of the C major scale degrees. G minor triad (G Bb D) degrees are 1 3 5 of the G minor scale - notice that the degree numbers are the same in spite of the Bb.

Intervals - intervals have two parts, one part is the name of the note's scale degree; the other part part is called "quality" and identifies the pitch for that note. The interval for the degree 3 of the G minor triad is "flat third" or b3. Notice the "b" is on the left rather than on the right as "Gb".

Scales/Chords - a scale is constructed of notes; diatonic scales are all seven notes constructed so that each and all of the seven notes' letters occur only once. This allows simplicity in scale and chord building. When you "stack thirds" you stack a series of intervals of degree 3, so every other note. The key signature will enforce the correct pitches, so C major triad is C E G by stacking thirds, G minor (two flats) triad is G Bb D.

[wolflen]

Slight correction: on a staff with a G clef, G is the second line; it is called a G clef because the line that the clef circles around is a G.

Wow..this theory stuff really is tricky...and a G minor is 1 3 5 or is it 1 b3 5..

and why is the G miner scale different in different keys..( this is where the "test of patients"..is really a test)

So ok..trying to "teach" theory to someone new to it..can be a task..details have to be correct even if they dont make sense

[pauln]

Slight correction: on a staff with a G clef, G is the second line; it is called a G clef because the line that the clef circles around is a G.

Oops... I'll fix it

[Mick-7]

Notes - a note is a letter name (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) that corresponds to a line or space in the staff. A single note (e.g., the second line from the bottom of the G clef staff) is "G". All marks (head with tail symbols) on that line are "G". Even if that note is subject to an accidental (# or b) from the key signature or added for that measure, that note is still "G".

Except for one caveat: a double-sharped F, i.e., F##, would be written in the F space of the Treble clef but pitch-wise it's a G note. Same with Abb, it would be written in the A space of the clef but its pitch is G.

[GuyBoden]

Im trying to get a grip on learning and memorizing scales....

It was recommended I start with all the major scales first...

but I have a few questions

1.....do I learn lets say C major scale and learn it all over the neck first and then move on to another scale? How many C major scales are on the neck?

or should I learn all the major scales in one position and then move on to them in a nother position...Like learn all the open scales first for example....

I just feel liek there is so much to learn and I need to pick and start somewhere before it gets overwhelming.....

2....why does a scale not start with the note of the name of the scale?
Im referring to the c major scale that starts on the 7th fret which isnt a c..I mean there is a c on the 8th biut scales dont start with eh note they are named for.....that seems confusing?

thanks for the help guys!!!!!

Lee

Thread first posted 2008?

Hopefully in 2025 you have learned the notes and intervals of at least the C Major scale on the fretboard.

[pauln]

Except for one caveat: a double-sharped F, i.e., F##, would be written in the F space of the Treble clef but pitch-wise it's a G note. Same with Abb, it would be written in the A space of the clef but its pitch is G.

Good caveat, yes; the concept does extend to additional accidentals up to changing the key signature of the tune while retaining the same enharmonic pitches in order to make the score less tedious and easier to read (and to read ahead).

Another caveat might be raised calling F## a "G note". If F## is marked on the first space from the bottom, it is an F note, not a G note. It is the pitch of a natural G, but as you indicate, it is also the pitch of F## and Abb.

One approach to keeping things clear is to maintain reference to the key signature when naming pitches as notes, but this is often tedious and I observe people preferring to misname pitches using the more familiar accidentals from the keys with less of them (calling Gb as F#) exchanging sharps and flats in and out of a key (local key center et al). Perhaps the chord symbol alterations tend to suggest allowing that?

The other approach to keeping things clear is to play by ear and not name things at all, just recognizing and utilizing nonverbal unnamed pitches/chords* and their relationships directly, aurally, by hearing the way they sound. This takes time and experience, and even when well developed one still needs to be able to "translate" back into theory or misnamed theory, depending on how others are communicating.

*scales and chords are made of notes, but sets of enharmonic notes may be conceived as pitches. Scales of inversion (modes) don't actually change the note names, but the note degrees are altered (tonic shift) while preserving the set of pitches. Do we have a term for chords (including inversion and root shift) not conceived as notes but of pitches?

[emanresu]

The other approach to keeping things clear is to play by ear and not name things at all, just recognizing and utilizing nonverbal unnamed pitches/chords* and their relationships directly, aurally, by hearing the way they sound. This takes time and experience, and even when well developed one still needs to be able to "translate" back into theory or misnamed theory, depending on how others are communicating.

+2 - both thumbs up.

To find out what scale goes where, a theory book could force you to force something that is not the most natural sounding.
Trying stuff out with ears only gives the most fluid approach - unless the writer him/herself has some other ideas.

[Mick-7]

One approach to keeping things clear is to maintain reference to the key signature when naming pitches as notes, but this is often tedious and I observe people preferring to misname pitches using the more familiar accidentals from the keys with less of them (calling Gb as F#) exchanging sharps and flats in and out of a key (local key center et al). Perhaps the chord symbol alterations tend to suggest allowing that?

I prefer that the notes on the staff match the prevailing chord, for example, if I'm in E major, I would name the 5th of a Dm7b5 chord Ab, not G#. We had a conversation in this forum in which members said that standard nomenclature is to use sharps in ascending melodic phrases and flats in descending phrases, which is often contrary to my preference.

[pauln]

I prefer that the notes on the staff match the prevailing chord, for example, if I'm in E major, I would name the 5th of a Dm7b5 chord Ab, not G#. We had a conversation in this forum in which members said that standard nomenclature is to use sharps in ascending melodic phrases and flats in descending phrases, which is often contrary to my preference.

Am I understanding this right? With respect to using sharps or flats, it looks like one system with nested reversing exceptions in collision with a simultaneous second independent system of non-harmonically related reversal.

1] updating the key signature for naming pitch note names:

- naming by the tunes' key signature
(e.g., E major four sharps)

except for chord symbols that use opposed accidentals
(e.g., Dm7b5)

except where symbols' root native key accidentals oppose the symbols' accidentals
(e.g., chord symbol for D major (sharp key) chord with flat alterations)

2] updating the key signature (alternating between sharps and flats) every time the monotonic polarity of the melody line reverses, up to the resolution of contiguous notes

[pamosmusic]

I prefer that the notes on the staff match the prevailing chord, for example, if I'm in E major, I would name the 5th of a Dm7b5 chord Ab, not G#. We had a conversation in this forum in which members said that standard nomenclature is to use sharps in ascending melodic phrases and flats in descending phrases, which is often contrary to my preference.

Thats not what we’re talking about.

The sharp or flat follows the direction of the line ** when there is ambiguity about which you should use.

So if you’re in D major, you’ll call it F# and C# either way, but if you’re talking about playing the note between B and C# it depends on the line. If you’re going from B up to C#, you might call it B#. If you’re going C# to B, you’d definitely call it C.

[pauln]

Thats not what we’re talking about.

The sharp or flat follows the direction of the line ** when there is ambiguity about which you should use.

So if you’re in D major, you’ll call it F# and C# either way, but if you’re talking about playing the note between B and C# it depends on the line. If you’re going from B up to C#, you might call it B#. If you’re going C# to B, you’d definitely call it C.

That sounds familiar - that answers what I called part two of the puzzle, thanks.

[Mick-7]

That's not what we’re talking about. The sharp or flat follows the direction of the line ** when there is ambiguity about which you should use.

So if you’re in D major, you’ll call it F# and C# either way, but if you’re talking about playing the note between B and C# it depends on the line. If you’re going from B up to C#, you might call it B#. If you’re going C# to B, you’d definitely call it C.

Right, but what I was saying is that if you follow the convention you described to name notes, the note names may not match the note names of the chord the line is played against. So if I have an ascending melodic line in E major that includes a G#, and it's played over a Dm7b5 chord, I prefer to name the note Ab to match the name of the b5th of the Dm7b5 chord. And if the ascending line included a B#, as in your example, and it was played over a Dm7(b5) chord, I'd prefer to name the note C to match the 7th of Dm7.

[GuyBoden]

I'm from the 'Modern School' that (wrongly?) thinks modern compositions should have no Key Signature and I use a flat 'b' when descending and a sharp '#' when ascending.

Yes, I studied Music at College as a teenager in the early 1980's.

[pamosmusic]

Right, but what I was saying is that if you follow the convention you described to name notes, the note names may not match the note names of the chord the line is played against. So if I have an ascending melodic line in E major that includes a G#, and it's played over a Dm7b5 chord, I prefer to name the note Ab to match the name of the b5th of the Dm7b5 chord. And if the ascending line included a B#, as in your example, and it was played over a Dm7(b5) chord, I'd prefer to name the note C to match the 7th of Dm7.

Yeah I know. You just misstated the alternative.

And most people aren’t reading chords, so that might make sense for the occasional guitarist or pianist, but for most situations isn’t particularly relevant

[rpjazzguitar]

I do a lot of reading and have for years. At one point I started working with two pianists. Each was theoretically trained and active in making charts. They'd go at it. They'd have different opinions about chart details and they'd complain about it.

Eventually, I had to tune some of it out. Turns out, according to a Berklee book on notation (and this experience), there are things that are a matter of opinion, not established fact, or practice.

It could get pretty far out there. At one point I pulled out an old chart and one of the pianists laced into it. This was wrong, that was suboptimal, this was confusing. My response: this chart has been played probably 50 times by different groups of musicians and nobody has ever made any of the mistakes you're concerned about.

I think that, sometimes, theoretically correct and easy to read aren't the same thing. And, one man's easy to read is not another's.

I'm no expert, but I do some charts. I follow the ascending and descending rule pretty much, but I don't like to see Fb's.

Pet peeve: I really don't like it when I've written a new tune or arrangement with a readable chart and, before people will read through it, they want to tell me about every theoretical error in the chart.

[Mick-7]

Yeah I know. You just misstated the alternative.

And most people aren’t reading chords, so that might make sense for the occasional guitarist or pianist, but for most situations isn’t particularly relevant

I don't know anyone who ignores the chord names written on lead sheets.

Here's an example in A major that adheres to the ascending sharps rule, is it how you'd prefer to notate it?

[pamosmusic]

I don't know anyone who ignores the chord names written on lead sheets.

Here's an example in A major that adheres to the ascending sharps rule, is it how you'd prefer to notate it?

Anyone who isn’t a chording instrument probably won’t be too terribly concerned with chord symbols while they’re reading a melody and — at the risk of stating the obvious — lead sheets are a very small percentage of the music written out there. Most music doesn’t have chord symbols at all.

As for the line there, none of this stuff is rules. Whatever makes the line easier to read. Rules should serve the execution of the music and when they don’t you should break them.