Aeolian mode

[Muttering Bill]

So - on any one chord - you can use the notes in that chord as the foundation and outline of your phrases, and if you want any other notes (which you probably will ) they come from the other chords.
That doesn't prevent you from using chromatic approaches (half-step away from chord tones) is you want something bluesier-funkier-jazzier.

*snip*

Generally speaking, you rarely need to break all that down into its constituent parts. I'm usually aware that a particular tune might use (say) the G major scale (its melody and chords all come from that set of notes), but that's a kind of theoretical consciousness, an intellectual analysis. When I'm actually playing, I'm not thinking of that, I'm visualising the chord shapes on the neck, the way they link up, because they're my stepping stones. Without them, I'm wading in the stream..

Right, but don't those other notes generally add up to an established scale anyway? It seems like it'd be easier to start with the scale and superimpose the chord tones over it.

If I'm playing over that song in G major, then I know that while I'm over a G chord I need to zero in on the G, B and D, but I still have the rest of the scale to draw from as needed. Rather than constantly having to think, "Ok, I'm using G, C, D and Em chords, so what notes are in those..." If they add up to a G major scale anyway, why not just use the scale? Think of one chord at a time instead of having to consider them all at once.

Or is that digging in farther than you meant? One chord at a time and just grab a neighboring note as required?

I can't imagine being able to visualize 3 or 4 or 5 chords simultaneously across the fretboard. It seems overwhelming. I can't even do it with one. That's the CAGED system, right? I'm sure it's probably not as hard as it seems. You've been doing it so long you don't need to really think about it, the same way I don't have to think about how one scale pattern matches up with the next. But having ignored chords for so long it's an intimidating idea.

 

[JonR]

Right, but don't those other notes generally add up to an established scale anyway? It seems like it'd be easier to start with the scale and superimpose the chord tones over it.

No, because you start with the chords. A piece of music, whether it's a lead sheet or chord chart, has the chords listed.
You only need to play the chords, and the scale is there under your fingers, in a musically pre-organised fashion.

If I'm playing over that song in G major, then I know that while I'm over a G chord I need to zero in on the G, B and D, but I still have the rest of the scale to draw from as needed.

Yes.

But the other way is not to theorise at all. You might have G, C and D chords, so - assuming you know the shapes - when you're on the G chord you think "I can zero on the notes in this chord (whatever they're called), and I have the notes in those other chords if I need them".
The result is the same, but it works with shapes, avoids the theory. The "G major scale" concept is an irrelevant label.

Rather than constantly having to think, "Ok, I'm using G, C, D and Em chords, so what notes are in those..." If they add up to a G major scale anyway, why not just use the scale?

But you are using the scale. Because the chords represent the scale. You can do it without knowing the scale name.

Think of one chord at a time instead of having to consider them all at once.

You don't have to "consider" them all at once, but you know where they are. You know the chord sequence, and what other shapes you'll be playing.
Personally I find it easier to picture the chord shapes on the fretboard than to picture scale patterns; and the advantage is one is working from the shapes anyway, one by one.
I might be on the G chord, but I can see the notes I need in terms of the other shapes.
Of course they make up a scale pattern between them, so it's arguably a trivial distinction! And I'll be thinking of those other notes in terms of this chord anyway. (Eg, the C and E as 4th and 6th of the G.)

Or is that digging in farther than you meant? One chord at a time and just grab a neighboring note as required?

Pretty much, yes.

I can't imagine being able to visualize 3 or 4 or 5 chords simultaneously across the fretboard. It seems overwhelming. I can't even do it with one. That's the CAGED system, right?

Yes. (Although I learned it before I knew it was a "system" )

I'm sure it's probably not as hard as it seems. You've been doing it so long you don't need to really think about it, the same way I don't have to think about how one scale pattern matches up with the next. But having ignored chords for so long it's an intimidating idea.

OK!
I did indeed learn chords first, and never learned scale patterns as such.

Of course, I now know all my scales, but the link with chords is still what matters. IOW, the way I learned just happened (accidentally) to work out for the best. I learned the neck fairly slowly but I was always learning songs - melodies and chords - and copying what solos I heard, as well as I could. I discovered it was all based on chord tones, so that was easy.

 

[LenPaul]

There is so much information related to modes & the guitar that it is mind frying,
so many differrent approaches as to understanding on the guitar.
I was lucky, I learned most of my theory before I even picked up a guitar & applied it
in a way that made sense to me, which much later turned out to be what some guitarists & teachers refer to as the 7 scale method.
Based on the chord scale , 7 positions, 7 chords, 7 fingering patterns,with the roots on the 6th string, but that's another topic altogether.
It's tough seeing the logic on a fret board, not like a piano where it is in black & white, so there is a lot of memorizing required. As Jon has said.
& as kyboch said, thinkin is stinkin, with time & a system that works for ya, you don't need to think a lot, just let it flow.

 

[weblogik]

Bay Deluxe Chord Encyclopedia
Practical theory for Guitar

That and lots of resources online to help put the theory into practicality.

Yo i had Practical theory for guitar by Don Latarski for years and i swear i read the same 1st 20 pages like ????????WHAT DID I JUST READ ... FOREVER lolol.

However a little while back i bought his Guitar Theory ILLUSTRATED and its AWESOME. If you youtube him, he gives some lessons in the style of the book that are explained SO well... def look him up

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24ZLut8AJjE[/ame]

there is a whole series of these. awesome