My guitar dilemma.
 

So basically, I think my problem is creativity or the lack of know-how which would enable me to be more creative. I'm a fast learner and I've been told by fellow guitar players that I pick up stuff a lot faster than they do, and theyve been playing a lot longer than I have. I have some friends who have been playing twice as long as I have and I can play just about anything they can. My only real problem is when it comes to creating. I have trouble coming up with my own stuff. I'm no Hendrix, i find it to be very hard to be able to create music without having much knowledge when it comes to the technical side of things. I think learning some theory helps to guide you when it comes to creating your own music.

I need some kind of spark to ignite me into writing my own music. Maybe there isn't one, I don't know. Has anyone ever gone through this sort of thing? Does anyone have any tips or thoughts, maybe some books I could pick up? Im just kinda lost. Any help would be appreciated.

This is just me. Don't know how anyone else thinks. When I'm writing a song, the more theory I try to put in it, the more mechanical it sounds. I just noodle a bit on my guitar, and find a riff and/or chord progression I like. And write lyrics for it. Then I work on an intro/outro and any type of bridge I may need. I make a loop and play some improv over it to get a closer feel as to whether I would want a solo. Its all one fluid motion. After its "done", I realize I don't like it, and I change parts; whether it be the rhythm or the riff itself or whatever. Also, I don't plan out the melody. I make one up as I sing it to myself while adjusting the lyrics to fit. If I don't like it, I start over.

And as for creating solos, they are comprised entirely of improvisation. While a jam to the loop, I usually find a lick or two I like. I try to incorporate them into the solo when I play it. And that's how I write a song lol. That probably doesn't help at all :P Sorry.

I vote in favor of listening to a wide array of great guitar playing to help get the ideas percolating:

I do listen to a lot of the stuff you posted.

My solos are improvised as well when I do write songs. Sometimes I think too much, so in a way I agree with you, peppermint. But I guess what I'm saying is, It would be helpful to know how to form a chord progression, what chords sound good together, What scales go good with certain chords. I tend to have trouble with my strumming patterns. Sometimes I tend to use the same strumming pattern on each chord of the progression. That gets really boring. I tend to struggle with chord progressions in general. My lead guitar playIng is better than my rhythm.

Those are all very valid concerns from a compositional standpoint. I guess it also depends on what style of music you're trying to create. I can't imagine someone writing a furious 3 chord punk rock tune stressing over playing the riff with a Asus2 or an A7 or just a regular Amajor. Don't think I'm dismissing your concerns with this suggestion either but, those cheesy looking guitar chord and scale posters like this - Amazon.com: Guitar Scales Poster: 22 inch. x 34 inch. (9780634060892): Hal Leonard Corp.: Books - are actually jam packed with the knowledge you're looking for, and presented in a much more streamlined way than those '... for dummies' self-teaching books. Being in poster form it's also way easier to slap them up on the wall so you can easily absorb the knowledge or find that next chord or note without having to put your instrument down (there's a 3 pack for chords, scales, and theory respectively if you scroll down that Amazon page a little).

Funky syncopated strumming patterns have actually been one of the more challenging techniques I've noticed with other players. It's all about practice and feel. Do you play drums at all? It sounds odd but there's a bit of a percussive role in your strumming hand that parallels keeping a beat (especially on hand drums).

Speaking of your lead playing being superior to your rhythm (assuming you mean you're better at single note noodling than chords) have you ever considered bass? There's no need to abandon one for the other but as the scope of your experiences expands the depth of your technique and ability increases.

I think you may have missed what I was getting that there. Yes, I posted a few songs that I think have great guitar playing in various styles, but I wasn't saying those artists or those particular songs are the the answer to your dilemma. I was saying if you feel stuck, listen closely to how other people approach songwriting. Break the songs down, think about how they're structured. The more music—and the wider variety of music—that you do this with, the more chance you have of new ideas being sparked in your head.

I totally agree with both of those comments.

No I don't play drums but just yesterday I was thinking about the percussive role in rhythm guitar playing and how playing with a drummer could help my strumming patterns.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "single-note noodling". Isn't that what lead guitar is?

I was playing bass the other day and was thinking about how I might be better at that than guitar. I plan on buying a bass sometime.

And I agree that jamming with other people helps you as a player. I need to do it more. Even jamming along with a jam track can really help your lead guitar playing. It's hard to solo when there's no rhythm.

For the most part it's what it has become but when you listen to a lot of early guitar solos playing 'lead' was more about replicating the main vocal melody of the song through the instrument. Though at this point it seems to be far more about showcasing the guitarist's technique.

The reason I mention the link with playing bass is that for the most part bass is just single note noodling and rhythmic melody as opposed to virtuosic melody like a lead player (for lack of better terms).

Also the fact that you're already contemplating the correlation between the various aspects of playing different instruments and how they relate to yours is a great sign. After all, it's ALL about playing music, the only reason you can't apply knowledge, theory, ability, style, whatever from a different instrument to yours is an entirely self-imposed limit.

Do you have any jam buddies yet? I developed far more as a musician within a year of playing with others (maybe twice a month) than I did by playing guitar by myself everyday for 5 years.

Now I see what you mean about "noodling".

Ive thought the same thing about bass. Single-note noodling is the one thing I really have a grasp on. I struggle with creating melodies and chord progressions and that's led me to believe that I should make an investment in a bass. It just seems simpler. But guitar is still something I have a passion for and I desire to learn how to harness the instrument.

A lot of my friends play instruments, so you'd think it'd be no problem having some jam buddies. Unfortunately I work a lot and I don't always have time. It's a bummer. I've jammed with them a few times and it's really fun. I've always imagined that jamming with other people would really expand your horizons instrumentally.

I think really the problem is your idea of what songwriting is is colouring your approach.

Songwriting is not about knowing what you're doing at all times.

Just sit down, throw your fingers into some random shapes and patterns and play chords. If you find one you like, listen to it and try and use a note within it to imply a leading note, then improvise another chord shape around that leading note.

If you keep doing that you'll find a lot of cool new progressions very quickly.

Alternatively, just get a drum loop of something you like (The drum pattern from Steve Vai's "The Animal" is a good one), and improvise over it. If you find yourself coming back to a specific improvisation because it sounds good, then use that and build a song off it. Then later on you can change the drum pattern to something a bit more interesting than the one loop, and that isn't just a direct copy.

Hell, you can do that with any part of any music. Even chord progressions or basslines. Just write a song around someone elses ideas and replace the bit you stole right at the end with something else.

That's great songwriting practice. It gives you a foundation to work from which you can use intuitively, rather than focusing on some imaginary songwriting toolbox or set of rules.

I guess I'm just not really satisfied with the stuff I have written so far. I always end up thinking my chord progressions are garbage. I guess I might just not be trying long enough before I abandon an idea and move on. That's usually how my songwriting goes - partially written songs and then abandonment. As I stated earlier, one of my biggest problems has been strumming patterns. I always tend to use the same pattern on each chord of the progression and it gets really boring.

To understand the connection between chords and scales I recommend Mel Bay "Guitar Fringerboard Harmony" (or a similar book) I think that is a good place to start.

Each genre has its own style of playing rhythm so I wouldn't know where to begin. But if you want a good example on how to voice chords differently using the same chord progression and vary the way chords played check out Jimi Hendrix - Wind Cries Mary.

good luck!

I know how to play the wind cries Mary. It's a beautiful song. But what exactly do you mean? Voice chords? I think I know what youre saying but I'm not sure.


Anyone ever read this? I'm thinking about investing in it

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/082584..._d_detail?pd=1


Or what about this one?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/095954...=aw_cr_d_books

Lets see that ****.

If i had a way to record I would post it. I'm sure you can play it. It's pretty easy but it sounds really great.

I am a HUGE fan of chord voicings. It's a way to play the shape of one chord to create the sound of another. It's a slight return to barre chord theory.

I'm assuming you're familiar with the traditional E and A shaped barre chords and how they move up the neck. The intervals are always the same 2 frets between A and B, one fret between B and C, 2 more to get to D, etc.

Now if you change the chord shape you form with your left hand moving backwards through the alphabetical chord shapes and their respective intervals while moving up the neck you end up with a bunch of different voices for the same chord. Here are 5 Emajor chord voices starting with the traditional open E shape and moving backwards.

e-0--4--4--7---12--
B-0--5--5--9---9---
G-1--4--4--9---9---
D-2--2--6--9---9---
A-2-----7--7---11--
E-0------------12--

I only show 5 because traditionally there are only 5 shapes to major chords (A, C, D, E, G) B and F simply being their previous chords moved up a fret. So from the start you have E, the E hidden in the shape of D, then C, then A, then G.

Something else a lot of guitarists who use alternate voicings seem to enjoy doing is including open strings into the chords to accentuate the particular voice even more. You could most definitely still sound the open low E on all of those shapes and have it sound 'right'.

Also, just because you feel like you're struggling with the guitar and think you might prefer a bass doesn't mean you necessarily have to abandon one for the other. If anything learning a different instrument and band role helped me better understand and approach all instruments.

I'm definitely not going to abandon anything. I enjoy playing bass too, so I want to get one.

And I think I get what you're saying. It's pretty much like a chord variation? That's what I've called it at least. When I started learning some piano I realized there were a lot of uses of chord variations. I'm pretty sure the Lennon song "imagine" uses a few variations. It's like you're playing the same notes of the chord, just changing the shape up a bit.

If you're jamming with someone, you can play the same chords as them and spice things up by doing some variations, or voicings.

Is that what you mean by voicings? It seems Like that's what you're saying, I've just always referred to it as variations.

EXACTLY! :thumb:

Ive used voicings before. They're a great way to fill some holes I'm your songwriting. But now that I really think about it, it is a awesome technique adds a lot to your playing.

You cannot be creative if you're afraid of being wrong.

So, I thought I had a fair idea of how to tell what key a certain progression is in. If it starts and ends on the same chord then it is In the key of that chord. Or whichever chord gives that feeling of resolving the progression (which is always gonna be the last chord) is the chord that tells you the key. Am I right?

Well I've got a new problem on my hand. Let's say you have practically two different progressions in the same song - a different progression for the chorus and verses, for example - how do you tell what the key of the entire song is?

Let's say the verse progression is: Am/G/D/C. So this progression would be in the key of C because the progression resolves on C?

Now let's say the progression for chorus is: C/Am/F/D. This progression is in the key of D?

Keep in mind that those progressions are part of the same song. How do I tell what the key of the whole song is when both progressions are in a different key? I'm sure I'm wrong somewhere along the lines, but as of now, I'm confused.

I guess I could solo in the key of C for the verses and then in the key of D for the chorus.

No, not really. Usually a I-IV-V chord progression starts on the tonic and ends on the V7. But it doesn't have to be that way for every chord progression.

When you change keys in a song it called "modulation."

C Major:

• C
• Dm
• Em
• F
• G
• Am
• Bdim
• C

G Major

• G
• Am
• Bm
• C
• D
• Em
• F#dim
• G

Am/G/D/C would fit within the G Major. It would be a II-I-V-IV (two-one-five-four) chord progression

C/Am/F/D
If it was in the Key of G it would be C/Am/F#dim/D
If it was in the Key of C it would be C/Am/F/Dm
They don't sound right to me played with the chords that belong to the scale. C/Am/F/D sounds something like Kurt Cobain. Hypothetically if it was changed to C/Am/F/G which is a I-VI-IV-V (one-six-four-five) chord progression in the Key of C, you would modulate from G to C which is do-able. It would sound more Beatle-esque but I guess that is not what you looking for.


Well it would help to know even though it is called a minor pentatonic scale it's probably better to think of it as a Blues scale. IMO calling it a minor pentatonic is really a misnomer that can cause confusion. It's because the five notes in the blues scale are not exactly based on notes in a minor scales. The only thing it has in common with Major or minor scales (with the same key name) is the Root, Fourth and Fifth note with added Blues notes and lead in notes. The second note in a blues scale is not a minor third but a Blues note. Actually the Blues note lies somewhere in between a Minor Third and a Major Third and it can help your playing if you know you should bend the second note a little.

Blues in A:

• A Root
• C Blues note - equivalent to a flatted third, but not exactly
• D IVth
• E Vth
• G Blues note - equivalent to a flatted seventh, ' '
• A Octave

The Wind Cries Mary Jimi Hendrix starts off with a Blues note; the tonal center of the song is F so the chords are Db (Blues note) E (passing note) F (the key)

I hope this helps some.

All this theory getting thrown at me is kind of hard to take in at once. Rubato says that progression is in the key of G, not C. Y'all both a speaking over my head so I don't really know. You can see what rubato had to say in the "music theory - ask anything..." thread.

That progression is in G major.

Yes the first progression is in G [Am/G/D/C] I was tired at the time and said it was C because he said he was soloing in C, but the second one [C/Am/F/D] I don't know what to say about it.

You can use a chord a whole step behind tonic (e.g. F to G) which is often done in Rock - it makes a good hook, but in this case it [C/Am/F/D] is unfamiliar to me.

Sorry, I was trying my best not to get too involved in theory but hard to explain how things work without it.

No need to apologize. I really want to learn some more theory. I have a basic understanding but I want to know more. I hope I can take some college courses some day.

The best way to really grasp theory is on your instrument. Play with enough songs and learn enough scales/triads/shapes and the theory will come into place. Sure some people can resite theory for days but to truly know why it is what it is and how it sounds is a great thing. It takes years, but is the far better way of doing it than just memorizing facts from a book.

My advice to you... pick up your guitar and learn song after song. Learn what scales your favorite artists are using to get their "sound". Lastly learn all the major and minor triads you can as well as learning how to move chords like an a7 up the neck.

Does anyone have any speed building tips?

Play slowly a LOT. And slowly add speed slowly.

The only tips for building speed are as follows -

1 - Don't tense up or contort. Be aware at all times of whether you're putting tension into your joints. Its bad for you, bad for your playing.

2 - Practice with some form of beat, not necessarily a metronome but a beat, and make sure that before you try and play something quickly, you can play it EASILY at a lower tempo. THe number one mistake "fast" guitarists make is forcing themselves to play fast. If you can play something fast, you should be able to play the same thing at ANY tempo below that and have it feel fluid and easy. Otherwise the only way to be fast will end up being to force yourself, which is the problem with point #1.


There are no other tips. Speed comes from absolutely nothing but these two factors, everything else falls into place around this.

This reminds me of an old lesson Dimebag Darrell published in Guitar World back in the day in regards to playing slower tunes with Pantera. Same principle, opposing target.

The number 1 mistake most metal guitarist make is thinking the song needs to be played super fast otherwise it sounds weak and wussy. It's actually easier for a band to play super fast because most people top out around the same speed and it's relatively easier to cover up slip ups when you're a blur. Practicing intricate parts at a slower tempo is what made them realize that those type of dynamic shifts could really increase the overall 'heaviness' of a tune.

But again, it all boils down to practice (with some sort of static beat to really build up your rhythmic timing).

Ya youre right. When you see some really fast players it's hard to believe that they ever started slow, but everyone did. Guess I need some more patience.

It's hard to play anything that sounds good without any rhythm. The only way I really have to play with some rhythm are jam tracks, or recording some rhythm with my phone and soloing over it. It makes a huge difference when you're actually playing along with some rhythm.

So he essentially gave a perfect definition of doom.

Yup. Then he got REALLY pissed off when none of the readers took him up on his offer to reimburse them for 6-packs after his multi-issue harmonic squeal lessons. He wrote a full page rant about it when he didn't get any beer receipts.

I've Been looking more into rhythm guitar and realizing that it really is an overlooked part of guitar playing, I'm certainly guilty of overlooking it. It's not as easy as it may seem, I've realized. Something thats really troubling me is the "rate of harmonic change", I guess is what you would call it, aka the duration of chord changes. It's easy to fall into the trap of having every chord occupy a bar (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not too familiar with this terminology).

My first instinct when composing a progression is to strum each chord the same amount of times and to stay on each chord for the same amount time. I'm trying to break out of that, it becomes so boring and really lacks a melody. It's hard to add lyrics and a vocal melody to a chord progression when it's really monotonous. The vocal melody ends up becoming a reflection of the monotonous progression.

Can anyone relate and share some tips?

I'd be careful trying to squeeze too many chord changes into one bar, it won't enrich your pieces any more than a slower harmonic rhythm would have and will just weaken the entire harmonic structure, you'd also have to work overtime to avoid unnecessary repetition. One or two a bar is just fine, Don't force yourself to break the bar lines, you gain very little by trying to write an uneven piece without necessity. If you want to add a bit of flavor I'd try incorporating a walking bassline into the progression, it should help you break it up a bit better and give you plenty of room for variety.

How's your strumming? I don't mean this to be flippant but I've noticed people who don't actively work on developing their strumming technique tend to struggle with composing rhythms. If you parallel playing guitar with drums your strumming hand is what creates the beat while your fretting hand determines which skin will produce what tone.

Ultimately it sounds like you need to add some funk to your flow for lack of better terms. The way you describe things isn't really wrong, it's just very square, 1 chord per bar, strummed the same amount.

A really easy way to break out of that is to combine two bars. So let's say you've got a simple chord progression like G, C, D, Am. The trick is finding a way to alternate between the chords partway through the rhythmic structure. So for this example try something like a '1-234, 1-234' type strum per bar, some classic waltz action (just like Jimi's Manic Depression) plus that rhythmic structure is easy to split down the middle.

So that same chord progression can easily become a bar of G, C, D/Am, D/Am. While it might seem a little redundant to double the last bar, this way you still have 4 bars of rhythm but as you can see it moves through an extra chord change and adds a nice punch to the rhythmic dynamic. The other reason it 'works' is because the original progression anticipates the D to start the 3rd bar, but only requires the Am to finish the pattern at the end of the 4th bar as a transition back to the original G.

Ultimately the best tip I can give to build up rhythm chops is GET FUNKY :afro:

I don't really know how else to explain it besides strumming each chord of the progression with the same strumming pattern and the same time.

I do get what you're saying, somewhat. Now I just need to put it to action. Hendrix was a great rhythm player, I try to observe and learn from him so I can transfer it to my own playing.

There's definitely no harm in visual learning. I most definitely picked up a few tricks from watching Hendrix performances, like how to properly get the scratchy / whooshing sound after the 1st solo in Voodoo Chile (it's a pick scrape + wiping the sweat from your strings with your shirt sleeve / elbow).

What I was really getting at though is something more like the difference between these patterns:

Straight 1 chord per pattern per bar

G C D Am
1-234-1-234|1-234-1-234|1-234-1-234|1-234-1-234

Right? So you've got 8 beats per bar, 1 chord per bar strummed the same way. What I was suggesting looks more like this:

G C D Am D Am
1-234-1-234|1-234-1-234|1-234-1-234|1-234-1-234

Where as you can see all 4 chords still get played the same amount and the underlying rhythm doesn't change but the feel of the melody is altered by virtue of faster switches in its latter half.

The other thing you can try is the exact same behaviour that gets you shushed by most moms and babysitters the world over. We've all seen it (and likely done it) when you hear some random music and just start humming or beat boxing over it. It's the same principle. When you're 'being annoying' you're projecting your own sounds and melodies over an existing rhythm that you obviously have to be recognizing (at least indirectly) while applying a new level of musicality over it.

With rhythm playing it becomes tricky. You can't ignore the underlying rhythm but if all you do is play it by the numbers it tends to sound hollow and robotic. It's like the aural equivalent to one of those old 3d seeing-eye puzzles where you stare at a fractal looking thing before it turns into an airplane or something. The trick is being able to feel and recognize the rhythm without needing to hear or play the static pattern so that you're more capable of adding proper accents and embellishments.

The big thing with Hendrix is that he blurred the line between lead and rhythm. His rhythmic playing was very melodic, and his lead playing was very rhythmic. It was VERY rare to read any of his tabs where full chords were just strummed.

Whatever you do, remember the golden rule - IT HAS TO BE FUN. Otherwise, just sell your guitar.

I dont really understand Your little diagram. They look the same to me.

It's really pretty amazing how hendrix could do so much with a normal chord progression.