Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Tip O' the Day: Learn one scale and you've learned seven.
- Thread starter IamGroot
- Start date
Thank you.
Here is one AHA.
Play G myxolydian in 3 octaves. Now play G myxolydian up to the first C and switch to C major and finish it out on the G note three octaves up. If you play three octave scales like I do, you got the same scale notes but using two entirely different fingering patterns.
Basically everything that you cats are saying here is gibberish to me.
It's becoming more and more apparent how big of a a miracle it is that I've been able to play in bands for the last 15ish years.
I need to learn some damned scales/theory.
It's becoming more and more apparent how big of a a miracle it is that I've been able to play in bands for the last 15ish years.
I need to learn some damned scales/theory.
Yes, but don't do it to communicate on a theory forum—do it to increase your versatility and marketability.
That is patently untrue. It is no more true than saying "ear training makes for shortcomings in our theory," or "learning to ride a bike makes for shortcomings in our walking."
Ear training opened up my musical world. Suddenly, I was capable of learning any song I heard. Theory opened up my musical world. Suddenly there was a language and framework for understanding chord progressions and harmony.
They both make us better.
For any given scale, there are many routes up and down the fingerboard. Associating various segments of each route with scales other than the one you are playing sounds like a recipe for confusion. For example, if you extend your G Myxolydian down below low G are you thinking E phrygian for the last few notes? Or, if you play on a 5 string, B lydian?
Oh yes for sure. However, being able to add to discussions like this one would be a nice side dish!
You have your opinion, I have mine. I also say you learn the theory to master the music, and when you master the music, you forget the theory.
If you start on E, yes its going to sound phrygian, Since I learned scales from the lowest possible note on the E string as well as the root starting point, I dont get confused.
Btw, if you are into fingerings, I think those presented in the back of Patituci's "60 Melodic Etudes", are very "efficient" in that you generally have three fingers on the string in any given position without stretching. Jaco's method also did this, but required stretching. Both are worth studying.
With Patituci' fingerings, i notice that the fingerings for scales like C Major, G Mixo, and F Lyd starting from the low E diverge but come back on the G string, because they both are going to end on high C. The fingering for D dorian is different as he is ending on D.
With Patituci' fingerings, i notice that the fingerings for scales like C Major, G Mixo, and F Lyd starting from the low E diverge but come back on the G string, because they both are going to end on high C. The fingering for D dorian is different as he is ending on D.
Last edited:
You've rather missed my point, which wasn't really a question to which I require an answer, rather one you might want to reflect on yourself. Let me put it another way, to demonstrate why I think that method of thinking is a bit disjointed. Say you are running a two-octave major scale, C1 to C3. Does it sound reasonable or sensible to think G Myxolydian for the G-G section? Or, if you want to use a different fingering/shifting pattern, to think F Lydian for the F-F section? Seems like complication for it's own sake to me. It's just C Major...
And a lot of times, that is exactly as I see it. But running F phrygian is a little tough for me, so as soon as I hit C#, I run it as C# major. Maybe not everybodys cup of tea.
