5-2-1 or 1-4-5 progression?

[JimmyM]

10,000 hours!?! I've heard that. Should have started back in the 60's instead of now .

We all should have. Oh well. On the bright side, while there are many hours of work ahead of you, just reading and learning chord/melody theory will shave many many hours off your learning curve, and it doesn't take long to get a basic mastery of it. Plus if you get decent at reading, it opens you up to gigs you'd have to turn down otherwise. Reading and theory is half the battle right there. The second half is getting the hands and brain to work in sync so you stay in rhythm, then the third half is learning how theory applies to what we want to play in order to communicate it to others, and using it to find new ways of being creative. That half never ends. But at least that's the most fun part, and it's up to you how quickly you develop it. A good jazz-based teacher is a great help and highly recommended if you really want to get good at a quicker rate. But you still have to put the hours in.

 

[Doc Blue]

Each progression has it's own feel. Only thing I could add is to set up an eight bar progression of both and then play both. It's in the listening you hear the difference. Then YOU identify the difference so if you need a I-IV-V or a V-ii-I you can play the one you want. It's in the difference YOU hear.

Writing about it or talking about it is not going to identify what you are hearing.

I hear 'ya , but I'm a retired scientist trying to turn artist. It's in my nature to over analyze before practice.

 

[JimmyM]

That's what I'm getting at. The tools in my bag of tricks, less the B and Bb, are basically the same for these two progressions. That seems too easy, so the question is what else makes them different, and how does the difference affect one's approach to a bass line?

The post you were responding to is deeper than you want to go with theory at the moment. Sometimes folks on here get a little advanced with the modal theory for people who aren't ready to get slammed All you need to know is that the key of F has a Bb and the key of C has a B natural, so plan accordingly. And don't be afraid to make simple concepts easy. More often than not, they are.

I don't want to come across as anti-modes. I think they're fun to learn and might give you creative ideas you never thought of, but when I'm playing songs and someone wants to throw it to me and says, "Take it," the number one rule of music is you have to take it. And I don't need a second layer of translation between me and the chords when I'm trying to come up with something on the fly. The key and chords tell me everything I need to know in the moment. And usually I want to play more notes than the 7 in a mode scale. So I'd concentrate way more on chord theory at this stage. Helps the modes go quicker, too.

 

[EarnestTBass]

[

That's what I'm getting at. The tools in my bag of tricks, less the B and Bb, are basically the same for these two progressions. That seems too easy, so the question is what else makes them different, and how does the difference affect one's approach to a bass line?

One thing that stands out to me is the tritone interval (F to B natural) you can use in F lydian. Although lydian is commonly seen as the brightest mode, the interval of three whole steps is also called diabolus in musicus for a reason. Whether it sounds like a bright #4 or dark b5 depends on what notes you play before and after.

 

[Doc Blue]

The post you were responding to is deeper than you want to go with theory at the moment. Sometimes folks on here get a little advanced with the modal theory for people who aren't ready to get slammed All you need to know is that the key of F has a Bb and the key of C has a B natural, so plan accordingly. And don't be afraid to make simple concepts easy. More often than not, they are.

I don't want to come across as anti-modes. I think they're fun to learn and might give you creative ideas you never thought of, but when I'm playing songs and someone wants to throw it to me and says, "Take it," the number one rule of music is you have to take it. And I don't need a second layer of translation between me and the chords when I'm trying to come up with something on the fly. The key and chords tell me everything I need to know in the moment. And usually I want to play more notes than the 7 in a mode scale. So I'd concentrate way more on chord theory at this stage. Helps the modes go quicker, too.

OK, I'll trust your judgement. Fully aware jazz theory can go really deep, really quick. I'll keep things simple on the surface for the next 1000 hours or more.

 

[JimmyM]

OK, I'll trust your judgement. Fully aware jazz theory can go really deep, really quick. I'll keep things simple on the surface for the next 1000 hours or more

As you're a scientist, you can certainly apply science to learning it. It's all cumulative, and goes much easier if you don't work above the level you're at. You don't start off with splitting the atom, you don't start off with advanced modal theory. That's why it's a good idea to have a teacher to arrange it out for you, and if you can't do that, a well-laid out book or series of books that you work through one page at a time. Videos can help but you need the books, too. Don't need many...just enough to get you rolling.

 

[smeet]

IV V I and ii V I are very similar. Both move from subdominant to dominant to tonic. The ii and IV chords share two chord tones. Classical and rock tend to use IV V I, Jazz tends to use II V I. I’d say IV V I is more “square” and open sounding, and ii V I emphasizes the cycle of fourths root motion.

 

[2F/2F]

You're thinking too much in terms of the notes used (as in the names of the notes), and it's fooling you into thinking that these progressions are very similar. But it's really all about thinking in intervals, not in notes.

People make the same conceptual error all the time with modes: thinking about them too much in terms of note names, i.e. in terms of relativity to other modes, when really, outside of major/relative minor flips within a song, they aren't usually applied in the real world by moving between relative modes. They're normally applied as fixed variants on the typical major and minor interval patterns. It's best to think of them with a fixed root, and as different set of intervals based on that root. For example, people often say, "When you're playing in E mixolydian, you're just playing in A major." That is false. The notes happen to be the same, but in real world use, it's completely meaningless that they happen to be the same. If you play in A major over E mixolydian, you will be phrasing and resolving very, very differently, and it will likely sound terrible. You'll never make that conceptual mistake if you simply throw note names and modal relativity out the window, and think only in terms of modes being alternate sets of intervals based on the same root.

Quite honestly, outside of starting a song in its proper key, I haven't actually thought a note name on the bass (or guitar) in over 30 years, since I was a very early beginner – no joke. Once I get going with the song, my thinking is 100 percent about intervals/patterns: I, IV, V, bVI, b3, b7 = finger here, finger there. Not C, F, G, A, Eb, Bb, etc. Not only can you transpose anything instantly that way, with zero struggle, but things like similar alphabetical notes within different progressions (like you are taking about) are impossible to get confused.

In other words, it doesn't help you at all in the real world to think that I-IV-V in one key are the same note names as V-I-II in another key. There's very little application for that realization. What you really need to know is where to put your fingers for I-IV-V and V-I-II (as examples) in any key that is called, regardless of what the notes are named.

 

[JimmyM]

In other words, it doesn't help you at all in the real world to think that I-IV-V in one key are the same note names as V-I-II in another key. There's very little application for that realization. What you really need to know is where to put your fingers for I-IV-V and V-I-II (as examples) in any key that is called, regardless of what the notes are named.

I was right with you right up until this line. There is a very good application for that realization...reading music. Unless your charts are all Nashville number chord charts, you'll get charts with only the notes, or sometimes with the chords with no interval numbers, only the chord's actual name. So you have to know the names of each note and where they exist in different spots on the bass in order to get through reading the charts. For me, it just became automatic after a couple years of doing it to think of names of the notes and chords as well as their intervals, and now I couldn't stop doing both if I wanted. Which I don't And only stringed instruments can take advantage of one-size-fits-all hand positioning for intervals in lieu of notes, so nobody writes charts with them in mind except other stringed instrument players.

 

[2F/2F]

I was right with you right up until this line. There is a very good application for that realization...reading music. Unless your charts are all Nashville number chord charts, you'll get charts with only the notes, or sometimes with the chords with no interval numbers, only the chord's actual name. So you have to know the names of each note and where they exist in different spots on the bass in order to get through reading the charts. For me, it just became automatic after a couple years of doing it to think of names of the notes and chords as well as their intervals, and now I couldn't stop doing both if I wanted. Which I don't And only stringed instruments can take advantage of one-size-fits-all hand positioning for intervals in lieu of notes, so nobody writes charts with them in mind except other stringed instrument players.

I don't think in note names when I read; never have. I figure out the key, and which line or space the I is on, and where its octaves are. I read lines and spaces in relation to the roots as intervals, not notes.

I do the same with chord charts. I go through the chart and relate them to intervals. It's so automatic that it's an instant translation. E.g. when I'm playing in E, I think "IV" when I see "A" on the chord chart, not "A."

I do not claim that one need not know where the notes on the board are. It's lesson number one on the bass. I can name any note on the board if I have to (just give me a sec for some of the high ones that I quite literally have never played in my life). I am just saying that thinking note names as part of your normal though process while playing is generally nothing but a mental encumbrance...and it can also lead to much confusion or conceptual error when learning theory. The relation of note names to intervals needs to become automatic, and even if you are reading note names, thinking of them mainly in terms of intervals is a far more helpful way to think of it. Everything you do is instantly transferable that way, and doesn't become tied to certain notes only in your mind.

 

[JimmyM]

I don't think in note names when I read; never have. I figure out the key, and which line or space the I is on, and where its octaves are. I read lines and spaces in relation to the roots as intervals, not notes.

I do the same with chord charts. I go through the chart and relate them to intervals. It's so automatic that it's an instant translation. E.g. when I'm playing in E, I think "IV" when I see "A" on the chord chart, not "A."

I do not claim that one need not know where the notes on the board are. It's lesson number one on the bass. I can name any note on the board if I have to (just give me a sec for some of the high ones that I quite literally have never played in my life). I am just saying that thinking note names as part of your normal though process while playing is generally nothing but a mental encumbrance...and it can also lead to much confusion or conceptual error when learning theory. The relation of note names to intervals needs to become automatic, and even if you are reading note names, thinking of them mainly in terms of intervals is a far more helpful way to think of it. Everything you do is instantly transferable that way, and doesn't become tied to certain notes only in your mind.

I highly disagree but whatever works for you.

 

[Acoop]

I'm sure I'm just repeating what someone else suggest, so, if I do, ignore.
Keep an understanding of arpeggio's to one key.
Progressions
1, 4, 5, is like a 1, 2-, 5. ...
2-, 5, 1, is like a 4, 5, 1. ...
Understanding substitutions is important.
In a 2- vs a 4 ... You're just adding the 6th. degree of the 4-chord.
Take the time to learn all your major, minor and diminished arpeggios in every key starting in C and working through the circle.
It helps if you have access to a piano to voice the chords and the arpeggios that go with them.

 

[MtManiac]

Each progression has it's own feel. Only thing I could add is to set up an eight bar progression of both and then play both. It's in the listening you hear the difference. Then YOU identify the difference so if you need a I-IV-V or a V-ii-I you can play the one you want. It's in the difference YOU hear.

Writing about it or talking about it is not going to identify what you are hearing.

And do this with a track comping the chords, guitar or piano.

 

[MtManiac]

I hear 'ya , but I'm a retired scientist trying to turn artist. It's in my nature to over analyze before practice.

Fortunately for you, music theory is fertile ground with a rewarding harvest!

 

[SteIIa]

I hear 'ya , but I'm a retired scientist trying to turn artist. It's in my nature to over analyze before practice.

As a scientist and a software developer by education/job, I'll say this when it comes to music: sometimes, analysis gets in the way. Learning and understanding music theory is great as a means of getting a lot of shortcuts into your learning how to play, understanding, and modelling music..... but it's not the end all and be all.

There's only one rule in music: if it sounds good, it's good.

Music theory comes after the fact, and tries to explain why certain things sound good. I'd suggest that, while you definitely hit up music theory, your biggest focus should be your ears. What does a I-IV-V sound like? What does a ii-V-I sound like? Internalize these because that'll be personal. Without real internalization of the sounds of things, you'll sound just like another college kid that just learned to play this scale over this chord and that following a type of chord should be a different type. Focus on what things sound like, what emotion they evoke, how they make you feel.

 

[TreySonagras]

I learned a trick for soloing a while back. In a ii-V-I progression, the scale tones of the I will work over all three chords.
For example, when you have a ii-V-I in C major, just play a lick on the C scale (especially the C Pentatonic) over the dminor - GMajor - Cmajor chords.
It's very rudimentary but is a great way to get young players improvising quickly.

 

[Doc Blue]

A lot of great discussion here, appreciate your inputs. I'll respond to keep the conversations going later today.

The sun is up, coffee pot is half gone, still cool outside, and I'm off to rent a dump trailer to pickup several loads of landscape material. My back is not what it was, so I have a small Kubota in the backyard with a full tank of diesel. You young ones can use a shovel.

Thanks everyone. Great discussion .

 

[pappabass]

ABCD

 

[Boundary Effect]

It is definitely worthwhile to analyze music. When one can understand the relationships, one can more easily get or come up with interesting sound. The song, Spooky, is intriguing. If a band goes as far to do the modulation from Em to Fm, a lot of bands don't bother, they tend to simply shift up a half step. That's not what the song does. It's also a mode change, most noticeable in the 'daa-dada, dadaa-daaa' part. In Em portion, the top two notes of that part are a minor 2nd apart, G to F#. During the Fm portion, they're a major 2nd apart, G to F. It's what makes that song cool, IMO.

With ii-V-I, the ii can also be thought of as the V of V. Keep in mind, V-I is the strongest cadence for resolve. There is reason V-I ends so many songs, phrases, etc... people respond to it. That make ii-V-I quite powerful. Some songs use II-V-I. Same thing. What is neat with bass, you can change the chordal structure. Let's says the band is playing IV-V-I in key of C. Bass could play F-G-C. If you're at the end of a verse, makes good sense. However, if you're in the middle of a verse and the IV-V-I is cadencing out a phrase, you can experiment. Try a playing the second degree of the IV chord, hence A-G-C. Now you've changed it to the structure to vi+6-V-I. It might sound good and different, add some tension, and that is what music is about.

A great example of substituting other chordal notes for the root is the last verse of Orphan Girl by Gillian Welsh. I was rehearsing it with some neighbors for a show. First time I played it like the recording, they stopped saying I had it all wrong. I had them play each chord, then I added the non-root so they could hear the tonal structure, once they heard it clean, they were sold.

I like this stuff.

 

[Johnny StingRay]

Sometimes when a beginner asks a question I can't help but think of the scene in "Tin Cup" when Kevin Costner explains all kinds of swing mechanics to Renee Russo.....she looks at him like he's speaking Klingon...then he just grabs the driver and says...."Or you can just grip it and rip it!!!"
Or the scene in "City Slickers" when Jack Palance describes "The one thing!"
Sometimes it is best to keep it simple and present only one thing to beginners to keep them from being overwhelmed.
If they get too overwhelmed early in their learning process, they will more than likely give up playing bass. I'd hate to discourage a beginner, thus denying them the lifelong joy of being a bass player.
Small steps still make a journey.