Building Solos

[jrich99]

I would currently rate my level as a player a "high intermediate" but I am relatively new to theory. What am I bes off doing so my solos dont sound so penta. boxy? Is the CAGED method worth a try? If so, what books should I look at?

[warmingtone]

Well the flippant reply would be to not play in boxes, or avoid the pentatonic!

...

However...I tend not to post that kind of thing!

One way to get out of this is to extend the "boxes" so that you are not "stuck" in position...so extend the typical E shape box as you go up to also go up in frets and the reverse going down...this produces a kind of linear or diagonal kind of "pattern" if you like. (I've posted some actual patterns lately explain this in relation to CAGED).

If not, or to start with, shift positions rather than playing across the strings in the one box.

...

But, even this doesn't get to the "heart" of the problem, this is pretty much "technique" or "style" the notes may well be the same, just played in different positions.

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with the pentatonic scale...some of the best solos and songs are written with this exclusively, don't fall into the trap of feeling you must play some other or extra or "weird" notes to sound interesting...plenty of players sound astonishing and not at all "boxy" with this note choice.

If you want to "add" more, well adapt the major pentatonic to the major perhaps, so add the notes C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C or the same in A minor, or some of the modes such as dorian and stuff.

However, seem to get a bit of flack for speaking of modes and they are of minor importance.

...

What has a big effect on soloing is things like "Melodic Contour"

Start by listening to what you consider to be great solo's, or not "boxy" or the kind of thing you would like to play...

Map it out, we are not talking note choices, it could be anything...while listening, draw a kind of graph around perhaps a mid line or on staff paper...where are things going up and down in pitch, where does the soloist "breath"...you might notate where there is a high "density" of notes perhaps (speed) or where there is a repeating motif...maybe where it resembles the tunes melody...

One thing that TAB is very bad at is showing this aspect of music...even if you don't read music, have a look at some transcriptions in real notation...you can see the melodic contour and density of notes, even without identifying what they are by actually reading it

Now you play something....does your soloing have a kind of overall "shape" as if it is going somewhere?

Now, play the progression you want to solo over, maybe sing some lines or a solo.

Try drawing a map, having a plan of melodic contour, steal a contour from something you like perhaps (not the notes or anything, just the "shape")...

Practice soloing with this kind of thing "in mind" will give your "instant compositions" (improvisations) a sense of purpose.

There are plenty of great soloists to learn from in all genres...in rock for instance, EVH was fairly masterful use of the "melodic contour" approach, much of it very similar contours and techniques I suppose, but that might give you some ideas...even a "one note" solo like Cinnamon girl has a "contour, albeit flat...hahaha...still effective though and in it'self a "plan"!

hope that helps...

[BigDaddyLH]

Green Grass and High Tides. Every guitar solo is in there.

[Joe-Bob]

First, learn the melody of the song and play it as a solo. (House of the Rising Sun is a good one to start with.) Listen to how it fits in the chords. Then embellish it a little, then a little more. Build from the melody, so that the melody is your point of departure.

Remember, this takes practice. Play with other people who will let you take some solos. Yes, they will be bad at first.....perhaps even awful; but it's definitely a learn-by-doing type exercise. Be patient, and give yourself time to grow.

[Telakaster]

Close your eyes when you are playing. You'll make lots of mistakes at first but it will help your ears make decisions on where to go instead of your eyes. You'll find yourself venturing outside the box, even if by accident, and you'll make discoveries.

[jrich99]

Thanks for the great tips. Any thoughts on any material, be it books or dvds or anything for that matter, that i should look into

[RCinMempho]

Some other tricks and devices...

Practice improvising, but limit yourself to just three strings, two strings, one string.

Play three note phrases only. Two note. And yes one note.

These just force you to do something different. But sometimes that's what you need.

[Tim Bowen]

It's an age-old cliche', but what a solo should do is tell a story, like a lyric or a poem. It should have a beginning, middle, and end.

Taking a simple theme and developing it is a good exercise. A great example of this in a blues rock context is Paul Kossoff's guitar ride on Free's "All Right Now". There's nothing even remotely difficult within that solo, but it's a textbook case of simple theme development that is quite effective.

When this subject comes up (quite often), I'll ask the person if they sing, or if they'd be willing to learn a little bit about singing. If the answer is an emphatic "no", then my (and subsequently, their) options become considerably limited. One of the best ways I know of to learn about structuring an improvisational melodic story is to record several passes of oneself scat-singing over a prescribed chord progression, and then going back in and learning to play on one's instrument what was sung. Obviously, this is no longer improvisation, it's analysis and reproduction. The key is that the initial phrasing was improvised. It's a process, and eventually, the process can happen in real time, but only if one is willing to take the risk of tossing out some clams in the spirit of learning on the fly.

Generally, building a story on a musical instrument should be little different than conversing with another human being. In other words, it should react to what has been said and attempt to expound upon it. The dynamics and information of phrasing should not be far removed from that of a casual conversation or a short story.

Any thoughts on any material, be it books or dvds or anything for that matter, that i should look into

Possibly, but none that I'm aware of. I'm afraid that the remedy here consists of time and hard listening, as well as relentless cross referencing. Sing as much as you can.

[warmingtone]

Originally Posted by jrich99

I would currently rate my level as a player a "high intermediate" but I am relatively new to theory. What am I bes off doing so my solos dont sound so penta. boxy? Is the CAGED method worth a try? If so, what books should I look at?

It's very hard to tell from your post/s where you are at and where you want to go to to suggest things in particular...

+1 on what Tim said above

An awful lot just comes down to listening and trying to understand what you like about things, why they sound as they do and doing it yourself...much of the instruction really is in the music itself.

It's certainly and area that isn't "taught" a lot...singing is a really important skill, but you don't have to be a great "singer" or anything, the thing is to be aware of what you might be singing in your head even if you don't have the vocal control to sing it in tune or anything. You won't find a DVD on that!

Overall planning also tends to be neglected...I have found that a lot of song writing books are great for getting more "depth" and broader picture to things.

You could look at this thread I prepared earlier...hahaha...on how you can use some of these ideas for note choices...if you are feeling you need more colour...http://www.tdpri.com/forum/tab-tips-...ml#post2063616

... You may be caught in the boxes, a lot of people find the CAGED thing works, theres a few threads on this, and a lot of material on the web and elsewhere...you really should be (if you are at a "high intermediate" level) able to play in any key, at least in major and minor pentatonics and in most locations on the neck, be able to find the notes of a particular key/scale wherever you are and be able to know and use basic chord theory. Ideally, for most chords that you generally use, know what the notes of at least the triad (1,2,3) and how these notes relate to scales and such.

All this just comes down to work...So, perhaps look into that and things like CAGED but it's a little unclear where you are at.

Having "more" notes won't get you a good solo. "All Right Now" by Kossoff with Free (good call TB) is one of the all time great solos and a fantastic illustration of this. Well worth looking at with the above ideas in mind. Listen at the call and response between the bass and guitar...notice how it is basically in A but has an implied... A-------G - D/F# - A ...kind of harmony in the bass....see how there is a classic slow and low to fast high and a density notes at the climax...see how Koss was working towards a line that outlines the change to G-D/F#-E (the V of A) to set it up for the return of the song.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is well worth really looking into in the overall "mapping" and doing it yourself. Apply this kind of thing to a song you want to solo over.

Have a bit of a plan. Eventually you will have a bit of a sense of such things.

Also, a lot of people have a fair amount of "technique" and can run around a scale and licks with some proficiency but fitting them together to make real melodies can be a little thin on the ground and is rarely "practiced" or "taught"...

There would also appear to be a concern about "theory"...be aware that there are many approaches, there is no "one theory" fits all...this is particularly the case with traditional "classical" theory, or "jazz" chord theory.

However, the idea of playing A minor pentatonic over an A blues is a "theory" and we can only make music with some underlying "rules" even if we don't learn the names for things or arrive at them through listening and teaching yourself. You only really need to know as much as you really need, so don't be put off.

Otherwise, some more idea of where you are at and where you are looking to go, what kind of music are you playing and are you happy in that genre, how you are approaching soloing at the moment, what are some of your favorite solos (can you tell why you like them?), do you find that pentatonics are not enough or are trying to play things where they are not sufficient?

[jjkrause84]

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this but if it is in your price range I would strongly advise you to buy a looper of some sort and sit down with that thing for at least an hour each day. Loop some simple chord progressions and learn to play with them. Improvise endlessly. THEN...record yourself and listen back. What worked? What didn't? The next day, set up the looper again and try something a little different. Without the freedom of improvisation I dont' think that anyone can ever truly find their own voice and since solos happen in a melodic context you need accompaniment.

Obviously you can do this by playing along with a song but the stopping and starting of a song and the fact that the song has a lot of "other" stuff going on makes it a less than ideal way to practice. Soloing with buddies is GREAT but they aren't gonna wanna be your backing track any more than I wanna be a backing track to my singer.


All that said, make sure you practice your base technique to the point where your fingers can do what your brain wants them to! I'm not there yet but I'm working on it. I think it is sad when great ideas are left by the wayside because people can't physically bring them to life

[jazztele]

play the changes. yes, this isn't just for jazz players. start by looking at the chord progression...see which chords fit the "box" you're working in and which ones beg for a little more...play off the chord of the moment, don't try to find a catch all scale.

listen to the players you think take great solos. i'll suggest jim hall and david gilmour as listening references. wes montgomery had a "formula" of sorts, but it worked...check him out too.

the melody of the tune should always be your guide, your safety valve. learn it in several positions. play solos that are just embellishments on the melody, don't think about scales at all when you do it.

transcribe. not necessarily whole solos and learn them note for note (although if you find a particularly good one, do it--it's the best way inside the brain of a great guitar player) but look for the moments that make you say "hell yeah!" and figure them out. every guitarist needs a bag of tricks, too.

[brokenjoe]

Lots of great advice here.

A couple of other things to consider:

1) Learn even MORE pentatonic positions and riffs. Learn how to play 'em all over the neck. Just because it's only five notes certainly doesn't have to make it boringly repetitive.

Ever heard this:



It's all simple major and minor pentatonic, but boy does it work. Most guitarists can figure it out in minutes, but surprisingly few can make it work.

Vibrato, phrasing, tone, pitch -these are the hallmarks of great playing. Billy Gibbons is another master of wrenching maximum soul from simple pentatonic licks.

2) Keep it simple. One of the easiest -but hardest things a guitar player can do is to play LESS notes. That's my standard operating procedure when playing over unfamiliar changes, or an unfamiliar tune.

3) Like Tim says 'beginning, middle, and end.' If you have to, skip the middle and build that simple solo up to a nice crescendo. Steve Jones of the Sex Pistols who (by his own admission) could hardly even play, was great at this. Listen to his solo in Anarchy in the U.K.

[JayFreddy]

Originally Posted by Joe-Bob

First, learn the melody of the song and play it as a solo. (House of the Rising Sun is a good one to start with.) Listen to how it fits in the chords. Then embellish it a little, then a little more. Build from the melody, so that the melody is your point of departure.

+1.

Good solos play off the melody, harmony, and rhythm of a song.

BTW, Concepts such as melody, harmony, rhythm, and scales are not theory. They are fundamentals.

Theory is more like describing why a minor pentatonic works over a dominant 7 chord, even though the dominant 7 has a major 3rd. It works, but there is no "proof" why... Hence, all discussion of why it works is theoretical.

Chords, scales, melody, rhythm, etc. These need no proof. They just ARE.

Avoid grouping everything musical that you don't quite understand yet under the subject heading of "theory"...

[jrich99]

Sorry I wasnt clear on my ability level...By high intermediate I meant from a technical standpoint. I can play a lot of songs ranging in difficulty level but dont feel satisfied in doing so. I want to be able to come up with my own stuff, but Don't understand music theory well enough. I am currently studying it though, and the point of this thread though was to gain knowledge on different scales and methods to use for building solos, so I can apply the newly learned theory more effectively.

[flatout9]

This is a book I'm looking at getting. May be too simple but I think it would be a good work through regardless.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...X0DER&v=glance

[slowpinky]

What jazztele was saying about note for note transcribing has always worked for me, particularly if I strive to really sound like the other guy and transcribe the inflections in the playing.
The things you learn about playing apart from the harmonic elements can be incredibly varied ; from how to change dynamics during a phrase to changing the timbre and placement of certain tones - these are the qualities that can bring a phrase to life -

Its not in aid of trying to mimic as much as getting a deeper understanding of the player
and what they are about.
The two players jazztele mentions just happen to be two of the most melodic and timbrally interesting players in their respective genres.

[warmingtone]

Originally Posted by JayFreddy

+1.

Good solos play off the melody, harmony, and rhythm of a song.

BTW, Concepts such as melody, harmony, rhythm, and scales are not theory. They are fundamentals.

Theory is more like describing why a minor pentatonic works over a dominant 7 chord, even though the dominant 7 has a major 3rd. It works, but there is no "proof" why... Hence, all discussion of why it works is theoretical.

Chords, scales, melody, rhythm, etc. These need no proof. They just ARE.

Avoid grouping everything musical that you don't quite understand yet under the subject heading of "theory"...

Well...I think this really misrepresents "theory"...there are reasons why things "work" and can be understood and described, it's not hypothetical or unknowable!

"hypotheticals" need proof...theory is where the fundumentals come from, proven over and over again through the analysis of real music, it's not just some unsupported idea.

Ideas about chords, scales, melody all come from "theory"...at least the vocabulary and the reasoning for why they work...music has evolved and I hope will continue to over time...music theory too has evolved and there needs to be many approaches to understand things, the "fundamentals" didn't just drop down from "heaven"

Even if you think that things just "ARE" they came from somewhere.

Comparatively and culturally, the relatively new western mechanisms to allow things like functional harmony to work rely on things that "theory" provides proven insights into.

It's only where there are exceptions that one needs to do the academic work required to make new "theory". Also, it's worth noting that there is no single "theory" and much of what is presented as "music theory" wont pass muster with a lot of folk, pop, blues and other forms...(let alone the vast amount of music that exists outside of the western culture and have their own ways of "working") this is particularly true of "classical harmony".

It would seem that many adopt a single outlook in understanding things and this can lead to false conclusions. Have an open mind about things like theory, don't get bogged down in it.

A lot of "theory" tends to be harmonic-centric and very light on in terms of melody and rhythm except to put names to things. Invariably people will "play off" the harmony and analyze things purely in relation to the chords...this kind of thing can blind you to other aspects.

...

In terms of using theory to learn more. Theory is great, it is important to back that up by seeing it at work in transcriptions and learning to do that yourself. You need to not only "read" this stuff but actually "hear" it by playing and listening.

Even the greats that appear to have no formal music training or "theory" have an intuitive sense of things (a personal theory) that they have accumulated through hours of playing and experimentation. The note that various combinations of notes sound a certain way in certain contexts, even if they don't have the technical "names" to these ideas. Formal theory training can help, but only if you play and "hear" it so you too can have this intuition.

There is a lot about writing music about, look at song writing books that will cover the broader aspects of how music works rather than the nuts and bolts and guitar specific stuff. Check out the library and try and find things that have actual examples that you can listen to and understand in the real world.

...

Thanks for the clarification...I guess the question still remains as to which direction you are looking to go and what "theory" is appropriate.

If you have been largely or exclusively pentatonic based, it would be a good idea to expand that to major scales and various minors. Learn not only the scales but the chord families that derive from each scale degree and how they "function" in a range of progressions.

Learn also chord theory and be able to see notes and how they relate to the harmony or chord they are played against. Not only learn this stuff but learn the sound of a ninth note against a chord (A against a G chord say) and hear how suspensions and sevenths want to resolve. This means playing, not just reading this theory stuff, it's really putting names to actual effects, not just a bunch of unsupported ideas from academics.

Another important aspect of "theory" is to keep your heart and mind open and not let it stifle you. There is a misconception that people who know a lot about this kind of thing play "theoretically". The thing is, this is just stuff in the background and the music should always come first.

That said...a good exercise is to take something you really like...and example would help give you an actual example of how this can help. It might be just a bar or two or a chord sound or change that you really like. Look at the overall basic context, things often sound as they do because of that context. The pull it apart as much as you can, look at what you don't quite understand then look for the ideas that can explain it that is based on millions of other tunes. Once you understand things to this level, the "theory" falls away and you "know" enough to apply the same principles yourself.

Examples of this might be a particular chord and scale combination, a particular rhythmic motive, the tonal quality or things like vibrato, call and response with the other instruments.

Better yet, listen to yourself and what you like about your playing. Do you have your own "signature licks" or ways of playing things. Do you have a liking for particular chord progressions or a particular tone or melodic contour? Develop that, understand it and work through variations so you can express yourself...nurture and develop that, use theory to "name" and understand, but be open to inspiration and your own voice.

Finally, don't allow yourself to be "prejudiced"...I've experienced this kind of thing with my early playing...there is nothing at all wrong with pentatonic playing, it might be limiting you or not the sound you are after...but be prepared to acknowledge that this is a fine and versatile sound with a very characteristic M2/m3 interval set and adding a lot of "clever" notes can actually detract from things. I experienced some of this even technically and in recent years had to unlearn things that I trained myself out of because it was "technically wrong".

...

Still...it's tricky to know if these posts are in the right direction for what you want to know. There are many threads that outline various approaches/theories about specific things like playing over V7 chords but often these miss out on the larger picture necessary to take full advantage of this kind of thing. Other times threads can be simply bland and not explore the possibilities...I linked a recent thread about a specific I-vi-IV-V progression and the various ways one could apply melodic material and note choices over it with reference to both melodic impulses and harmonic implications.

Another more specific thing would be to post a progression and see if people can show various approaches that you might approach it...or a melody and ways to harmonize it.

[JayFreddy]

Originally Posted by warmingtone

...theory is where the fundumentals come from, proven over and over again through the analysis of real music, it's not just some unsupported idea.

Ideas about chords, scales, melody all come from "theory"...

No, chords and scales exist in nature. We just discovered them, and happened to like the way they sound. Why we like the way they sound is the theory part.

You can have your definition, I'll keep mine.

Edit: Ever hear of Occum's Razor?

[Tim Bowen]

Back to building rides.

Much has to do with the context of the tune at hand.

For something like an eight bar pop ride, it's all about making a statement that sits like a lyric and can bear repeated listenings, and getting out of it as quickly as you got in. Theme development and varied dynamics are less of a player here.

For rides that are to consist of several choruses, pacing is key. Musicians often like to say that they don't think while they play (it's from the gut, or whatever), but at the very least, thinking thematically on the fly is absolutely key.

The first thing to consider in an extended ride is that coming out of the gate with all guns blazing is probably a bad idea. If you truly want to build and tell a story, it's a good idea to start simply and develop themes toward increasing the drama. If you've spouted everything immediately, there's little to build upon.

There are many ways to build.

An improvisation can benefit from playing around with meter. You can start with slow, conversational phrasing and eventually whip it into a frenzy by playing relentless sixteenths, or whatever method of taking things over the top feels right at the time.

Dynamics are a huge player. They are like a surpise ending in a film or a "dream within a dream" sequence. Take the ride to a furious emotional level, back the dynamics down, and then take it back up to the point of insanity. This is toying around with the emotions and pyschology of the listener. It takes a fair amount of confidence to pull it off, and even so, it doesn't always work. You really have to believe in what it is that you're attempting to convey.

Harmonic considerations are all over the map, depending of course upon the changes at hand. I like outlining the changes with sweet chord tones and conversational phrasing initially, building upon that, and using a repeating crescendo motif that speaks only to the basic tonality, but does not address the chord changes per se as they go by, in a way that builds drama in a very visceral way. Wes Montgomery and Jimmy Smith used this approach to great effect on many occasions. I'm not in the same league as those gentlemen, but I did learn that specific pacing technique from those guys. If the tune is harmonically simple enough to allow both major and minor tonalities over a parent root, I often like to start with the sweet chord tones of major before implying nastiness with minor and blues sounds. I sometimes like to follow up from there with questionable melodic choices. On the flip, as long as dynamics are also at play, I like to flip the order. I also enjoy building melodies with diatonic (and passing tone) thirds and sixths, as well as with the decidedly angular 4th. Right or wrong, I usually wind up making it up on the fly.

[warmingtone]

Sure...Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) after friar Ockham...

"Of several acceptable explanations [for a phenomenon], the most accurate and well-ordered theory of explanation is preferable, provided that it does not contradict the observed facts."

Yep...and the observable facts in western music a clear and documented lineage of evolutionary precedents...so we can see how the tuning changed to one closer to the "natural" harmonic series and listeners were able to adapt to it's "un-natural" out of tuneness by enlarge for the benefits it produced. We can see how modal medieval music developed into sophisticated functional harmony over time and the predominance of the major scale and it's functional expectations. We can see how music struggled with the minor mode still to this day, borrowing from the major scale expectations, we can see how modal impulses survive still in folk and other traditions. We can see all over the world a wealth of different musics and listeners that do not hear western music the way we do and find it most un-natural...my parents in their 90's now still do not hear a music like blues the way someone like I might.

A "just is" explanation is not a "well ordered theory of explanation"...nor is it particularly helpful.

But I do take your point...

My point is that while all "sounds" exist in nature and our minds seek order it would seem, they have an impulse to "make sense" of things. If a listener can't make sense of things they will perceive sounds as "noise". Once a pattern, however it might have arrived at it, like say the major scale becomes firmly established and "fundamentals" can be observed from that body of work, theory "names, principles, fundamentals" arise.

But this is true only under certain conditions and expectations...these "fundamentals" are only true where the artist and listener are attuned to them...there are verifiable tests to show this is true across cultures, and that even within cultures people can recondition their ears and like music that they wouldn't otherwise once they understand it (often through repeated exposure).

But, just our brain likes patterns, we also crave novelty...we like to see the "patterns" challenged or go in new directions...we like to hear the next "big thing".

Many players, as I suspect the OP might be one, find over time that over-exposure to a certain set of patterns (like pentatonic playing) will tire even of their own efforts and crave something more. I personally find it interesting that it can work the other way, immerse yourself in "jazz" for a while and one might experience something familiar from the past or something simpler to be just as powerful and novel.

You see it all the time...a blues player suddenly "gets" country and can't get enough of bends that are in tune and a tone that is clean...or someone that has been playing pentatonic sounds (M2/m3) intervals for so long that they crave the variety that a jazz vocabulary can offer.

But sure...a narrower definition of what "theory is" (mine is that such ideas are "fundamental" within context I guess, but is not a "natural law" as there is plenty of evidence that contradict it outside of that context historically and culturally and "provable" experimentally)...gives one a simpler but narrower scope to work with.