The theory side

[jayman2606]

Im new to bass and am learning theory so far:

major
minor
pentatonic
harmonic minor
Diminished


I also know the entire fretboard now from 0-16

What scales would be good for me to learn next?

Many thanks

[Sahm]

Those scales should cover you for a while! Maybe throw in Mixolydian, as you'll play a lot of dominant 7th's.
I would focus now on chords, and their inversions. Play them all around the neck and be comfortable approaching a chord from any direction. Most of a bass player's function is walking around chords, and less about playing full scales.

[onlyclave]

I don't think you're learning anything about theory at all, just regurgitating some scales which is a really boring thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_%28music%29

Read this and see if you can realize a strict four part harmonization of God Save the Queen. According to everything you read on these forums modes are the most important thing in music theory but I would have to disagree. How are your diatonic 7th arpeggios doing these days? No more modes.

[JTE]

I find modes a much over-hyped and limited thing to learn at all. First I think you gotta OWN the diatonci major scale. Know how to finger it, know how it sounds, know WHY it's that way, know its construction. Be able to quickly figure out (more important than memorizing) the notes any key.

Then you gotta know chord construction. How do you build a major chord? You gotta know what notes make an Amaj7, or D13b5b9. And know what notes are critical to the sound of the chord.

Then you gotta know how the chords go together. What is a ii-V-I progression, and why do those chords go together?

And for all fo this you have to be able to play it on the neck. It's much more useful to be able to take a chord progression and arpeggiate it in time than it is to know the permutations of every mode in all 12 keys.

Learn this stuff, and lock with the drums. Then you're a bass player, and not a finger twiddler.

jte

[HaVIC5]

I agree that scales are way too over-hyped, and feel that equally important to learning scales is learning your triadic and 7th chord arpeggios in every possible fingering and every possible inversion across the neck. Arpeggios are the structural framework for chords, wheres scales don't give you any information about the scales you're playing. Learn these 3 and 4 part arpeggios.

Triads
Major
Minor
Diminished
Augmented
(Sus4)

7th chords
Major 7
Dominant 7
Minor 7
Minor 7(b5)
(After learning those four well, move on to these)
Sus4 7
Diminished 7
Augmented 7
Minor (maj7)
Augmented major 7

[bopeuph]

Also, with the above scales and your knowing the fretboard:

Can you name the notes out loud while playing them?

Nick

[ryco]

I don't know that scales and modes are necessarily bad things to know.
They do, of course, provide the connecting notes between chord tones.
And modes provide some very interesting intervals and chords and progressions.

But I agree learning and concentrating on chord tones (arpeggios, inversions) first will provide the tools to building good fundamental bass lines.
Get the sounds of thirds, fifths and sevenths in your ears because it's a strong 90% of what bass lines are made up of.

But it all should be explored.

[mutedeity]

Scales and modes are "overhyped"? Where do you think you get the context for triads and 7th chords in the first place? It's not about learning the scales verbatim anyway. Learning modality and how to apply it to any scalar context is probably one of the most important steps in learning theory. It shows how a group of tones relate to each other and how the relative degrees of each modulation gives a new context to each voicing of those tones. Learning how modality works is also fundamental in having a broader understanding of relative harmony.

It is important to understand how modes are formed beyond the diatonic modes (ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian and locrian) too, so that you understand how they are connected and also so that you can apply that connection to any scale.

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

IAccording to everything you read on these forums modes are the most important thing in music theory but I would have to disagree.

I used to think so, too, until I go hold of Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory Book.

Now, the thing about "theory books" is that they all say essentially the same thing, but in different ways. For some reason, Levine's explanation as to how modes are built, and what they mean when taken together - that they are essentially defined by the given tetrachord built on the root tone - somehow broke it down for me.

Suddenly, I began seeing chord progressions in terms of LOGICAL construction extrapolated from modal theory. It began to make sense. Before that I just thought "eh, so some cats're sitting around and one says 'hey, let's use modes!'"

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

Learning modality and how to apply it to any scalar context is probably one of the most important steps in learning theory.

Well, there ya go!

Now, if I can just incorporate it so deeply, that I no longer THINK about it, I just DO it...

[onlyclave]

Originally Posted by Illbay

I used to think so, too, until I go hold of Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory Book.

Now, the thing about "theory books" is that they all say essentially the same thing, but in different ways. For some reason, Levine's explanation as to how modes are built, and what they mean when taken together - that they are essentially defined by the given tetrachord built on the root tone - somehow broke it down for me.

Suddenly, I began seeing chord progressions in terms of LOGICAL construction extrapolated from modal theory. It began to make sense. Before that I just thought "eh, so some cats're sitting around and one says 'hey, let's use modes!'"

BUt if you don't understand classical music theory or know what submediant, mediant, subdominant, dominant, or tonic means, if you don't understand what a perfect authentic cadence vs. a plagal or deceptive cadence, if you can't analyze a piece of music and label the nonharmonic tones, if you can't analyze a melody and on on on ... then no matter how much you like Mark Levine's book you are still missing a lot of stuff. Jazz theory has it's roots in classical theory and I don't think you can really make sense of one without the other.

[Tnavis]

I have to throw a shout out to The Jazz Theory Book as well, because it finally made everything make practical sense to me, even after two years of classical theory. The reason why is because it describes how everything is used and can be used in a real life situation.

The "problem" with classical theory is that it can become needlessly complex when presented with a common situation, like a dominant chord outside of the tonic key. In jazz theory, it's a secondary dominant. In classical theory, it's a German sixth, which never made sense to me.

Back to original poster: I can't recommend enough Seriouos Electric Bass by Joel di Bartolo. It just may be the only bass theory book you'll ever need.

[Earthday]

My only piece of advice is to make sure you're really understanding what theory is about. Knowing scales, chords, note names, intervals and all that stuff isn't knowing theory. It's just what you need to know to understand theory. These are the basic building blocks. These are tools you have the freedom to use when constructing music.

I've heard far too many guitarists say they know theory, but their only theory is to play in a "safe" scale.
In fact a guitarist I've played with for a few years just informed me that he always thought the idea of being in the right major or minor scale WAS theory, and that stepping outside of those scales is stepping outside of theory. Seems like the logic of a 2-year old, but when I think of the way a lot of online "theory" guides are laid out, and what a lot of people on forums suggest, I can see how it happened.

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by Earthday

My only piece of advice is to make sure you're really understanding what theory is about. Knowing scales, chords, note names, intervals and all that stuff isn't knowing theory. It's just what you need to know to understand theory. These are the basic building blocks. These are tools you have the freedom to use when constructing music.

I've heard far too many guitarists say they know theory, but their only theory is to play in a "safe" scale.
In fact a guitarist I've played with for a few years just informed me that he always thought the idea of being in the right major or minor scale WAS theory, and that stepping outside of those scales is stepping outside of theory. Seems like the logic of a 2-year old, but when I think of the way a lot of online "theory" guides are laid out, and what a lot of people on forums suggest, I can see how it happened.

I try to think of theory as the language used to describe and understand what you are doing musically. Learning diatonic harmony is really only the first step in learning how to talk about scales, modes arpeggios and so on. It's not so much a matter of whether you are playing the right thing as much as is it a matter of what you are playing and why it has a particular sound.

The main reason for learning the major scale is that it is used as a comparison for everything we talk about in western tonality. How do we know if an interval is a minor or major, for example? By comparing it to the major scale. Also, learning "the modes" should be about more than learning 7 scales. It should be a way of demonstrating that for every 7 tone scale, for example you have 7 permutations, or 7 modes and this can be applied to any given group of notes. The same will be true for 8 tone scales or 6 tone scales and so on. From there you can learn about how triads and so on are attached too.

Once you understand this information you can go on to analyse music not as being wrong or right, but about the melodic and harmonic relationships formed by tonal context and what effect those relationships have.

[HaVIC5]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

Scales and modes are "overhyped"? Where do you think you get the context for triads and 7th chords in the first place? It's not about learning the scales verbatim anyway. Learning modality and how to apply it to any scalar context is probably one of the most important steps in learning theory. It shows how a group of tones relate to each other and how the relative degrees of each modulation gives a new context to each voicing of those tones. Learning how modality works is also fundamental in having a broader understanding of relative harmony.

It is important to understand how modes are formed beyond the diatonic modes (ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian and locrian) too, so that you understand how they are connected and also so that you can apply that connection to any scale.

You're preaching to the choir, bud, and I've made the same comment to other people concerning the nature of arpeggios vs. scales when somebody espoused the incorrect notion that chords came first (an old bebop myth perpetuated by old farts who don't know anything). The fact of the matter is, both are important, and the fluid incorporation of both into your playing/improvisation WILL make you a better player. The problem, though, is that the threadstarter was asking what scales to learn next to improve the "theory side", and as a person who has witnessed firsthand the problems associated with a scale-only approach to fingerboard harmony, I know how overemphasis on scales ends up (here at Berklee, fusion/metal guitarist who run scales 100000 mph are all too frequent.)

I have to throw a shout out to The Jazz Theory Book as well, because it finally made everything make practical sense to me, even after two years of classical theory. The reason why is because it describes how everything is used and can be used in a real life situation.

The "problem" with classical theory is that it can become needlessly complex when presented with a common situation, like a dominant chord outside of the tonic key. In jazz theory, it's a secondary dominant. In classical theory, it's a German sixth, which never made sense to me.

Well, give the classical theorists a break, augmented sixth chords and their functions predated the jazz concept of a sub V by close to 200 years. You're not going to come up with a complete theoretical concept overnight for a music that hasn't even been invented yet. In fact, in a lot of jazz arranging textbooks from the 1960's were still calling it the bII+6 rather than the SubV/I. The augmented sixth chord (which, by the way, is a pretty simple concept if explained correctly) is the precursor to the subV, same as the accented passing tone is the precursor to the tension, same as auxiliary triad is the precursor to the auxiliary diminished, etc.

Really, classical theory and jazz theory are two ways of looking at the same thing. There is applicable lexicon on both sides of the spectrum to describe the vast majority of music. Jazz theory in general doesn't quite have the theoretical models to explain a lot of the thing classical composers have done since the early 20th century, though, so in a lot of way jazz theory isn't nearly as advanced as classical theory.

[mutedeity]

Yes, both are important and chords don't necessarily have to be contextualised in terms of which scale they "belong to" but scalar context is how we initially understand chord construction. This all goes to the OP asking which scale to learn next, because in my opinion, learning x, y, and z scale without actually understanding how scales, modes, chords all function is putting the cart before the horse.

[Tnavis]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

(an old bebop myth perpetuated by old farts who don't know anything).

You're kidding, right? As far as their impact on theory goes, those "old farts" are the equivalent to Bach in the ideas they came up with and the influence they had.

Back to the original poster:

Scales are fantastic. Now learn what to do with them. Harmony isn't written with scales, it's written with chords. Find out which scales relate to which chords. Find out which scales relate to which scales, for that matter. Once again, Serious Electric Bass by Joel di Bartolo.

[JTE]

OK, so how does knowing D Dorian is the mode for a Dmin7 in a ii V I get me anywhere that knowing D F A C are the chord tones, and that three measure phrase is in the key of C get me? I see it this way- The notes in the C major scale are my overall pallet. And the Dmin7 gives me targets of D F A C. Sure D Dorian (D e F g A b C) gives me those notes and D Dorian sounds different than C Ionian even though they're the same notes. But I'm talking about music, not running the scale. If I play C major root to root over the Dmin7, it'll work. But it won't sound right. Playing D Dorian might sound a little better, but it's still scalar wanking, not making music.

My point is that until you fully understand the SOUND of the major scale, AND you fully understand the way chords are built from that scale (i.e. knowing both how to build the chord from any root- 1, 3, 5 for major- 1, b3, 5 for minor, 1, b3, 5, b7 for min7, etc.) AND knowing the harmonized scale (i.e. WHY excatly the chords are Cmaj7 Dmin7, Emin7, Fmaj7, G7, Amin7, Bmin7 b5 or I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viib5) then getting into modes muddies a pretty simple concept.

jte

[Tnavis]

Scales and chords should be learned at the same time. They're intimately linked, so why spend the time to learn them seperately?

Knowing the chords that build off of the major scales is important, bus so is knowing the modes that are built off of them/they are built from. In C major, D Dorian doesn't just work over Dm7, it IS Dm7.

Playing D Dorian over a Dm7 isn't "scalar wanking". It's playing one of the options available over that chord. What you do with the notes is up to you.

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by Tnavis

Scales and chords should be learned at the same time. They're intimately linked, so why spend the time to learn them separately?

+10 Scales, chords, composition are all intertwined and need to be all studied all the time. Scales are the first step into theory since teaching the other topic come from them, but as a student progresses they need to switch hats and view new songs, techniques, and theory from all the points of view. A lot can be learned from studying just one song from every angle. Take time to learn to play the melody, create bass lines, transcribe bass lines, play progression in arpeggios, playing progression in chord/scales, play in upper chord tone, play two-octave scale and patterns to the progression, add chord substitutes, re harmonize, play in different styles, compose similar song, play song in chords on bass, analyze the song melody, the chords, the relationship between the two, listen and emulate how great players phrased the melody and bass line. Learn one song in that much detail is huge learning experience that will translate to all other music you play. Now do it again with another song and different style or complexity. You will find it gets easier and faster and your knowledge of how musicians and composers think will grow and expand your own playing. Do the same thing with a bass player you dig. Take a tune of theirs and treat it the same way, do a few an you will start understanding how they think and how they would treat a song.

So no one way is right all the different ways to study music need to be done at one point or another, sometimes in parallel.