"Roll over Beethoven" questions

Turnarounds (ideas taken from the "Kansas City" lesson):  

You need to transpose those ideas to this key (D in the original, C in David's lesson).
This may be hard if done from the standard notation, but is very easy if you do it from tab: it's a matter of adding an exact number of frets to the one's in Kansas City. At least the so called "simplest", standard and chromatic turnarounds are easy to carry out. The one tagged "most used" would be another matter (at this speed).
Is there anything like a most used turnaround in rock?  

Any more suggestions?
 

Chord Progression

What's up with IV-V-I instead of V-IV-I in the last three measures (as per Beatles' and Berry's song-book  transcriptions)?  
What consequences does this have? How can I play around with this?  
Is it likely they (Chuck and the Fab4) used IV to V cause they were using barres and it's a lesser stretch?

Soloing

Can you always play the scale that corresponds to a song's key over it? If this is D Major, would D Major as a scale be fit?  
Can I say the same about the relative minor scale (B min)?
The thing is I tried this in another song and it worked.  
What about the Blues scale? Can it generally replace the Major scale?
Is there a Major Blues scale? What are its "blue" notes?

I practised playing those pentatonic scales (DMaj, Bmin, Dmin) along with a slowed down version of the song.  
It was a lot of fun but I don't know exactly what the conclusions should be. It really was worthwhile, though.  
 
So as to better notice the differences I only used the lower octave of the scale. That means: root on 6th string and follow the general pattern for 5 notes.  
I also used the blues scale for each of them (6 notes).  
 
The higher octave can also be added: just use the five (six in the blues scale) notes of the Pentatonic.  
 
All of them fitted nicely. That means over this song you can play the song key's Major and Minor Pentatonics. Besides you can play the key's relative minor Pentatonic too.  
 
Although I noticed the difference, my ear is still not trained to actually sing the scales. Is singing these scales as good as many people say?  
 
I felt DMajor Pent was simple and cheery.  
Bminor added some harmony, but still sounded cheery (although it's a minor).  
Dminor sounded more complex and not cheery.  
 
I expected something special to happen when I played the blue note but it didn't sound too wayward or dissonant.  
 
Are these conclusions right? What can be added?

More on scales and soloing

Consider this table (every line shows the notes for a chord in the progression)
     I     V    VI    bVII  
I     D    A     B       C  
IV    G    D     E       F  
V     A    E     F#      G  
 
The series of notes thus involved is:  
         D-E-F-F#-G   -A   -B-C.  
Whereas  
DMajor is D-E-  F#-G   -A   -B  -C#  
DMajP  is D-E  -F#-    -A   -B  
Dmin   is D-E-F   -G   -A-Bb  -C  
DminP  is D  -F   -G   -A-    -C  
DBlues is D  -F   -G-G#-A-    -C  
 
What is that resulting series of notes?  Its main difference with DMajor is the additional use of b3 and replacing 7th with b7th.  
DMajP as a subset of DMaj doesn't use any kind of 7ths.  
 
The main difference with Dmin is the additional use of natural 3rd, replacing b6 (in the minor scale) with 6  and  replacing b7th (minor) with 7th. DminP is a subset of Dmin, the main additional difference being not using the 2 nor b6 (only present in the minor, not in our resulting scale). DBlues adds G# or the tritone, which I also expected to be more dissonant.  
 
Is there a way I can feel (instead of just writing about it)what the "chord-scale" gets from playing those other standard scales over it?  
 

On the other hand, if we take the chord progression I-IV-V (and the notes involved in the shuffle at each degree), and we compare the notes on each scale and those in the shuffle,  
 
DMaj Pent  
I) matches I, V and VI notes on the 1st chord but leaves b7th unmatched  
IV) leaves I and bVII notes unmatched in shuffle of 4th chord  
V) leaves b7th unmatched during 5th chord  
 
Dmin Pent  
I)uses VI instead of bVI during I chord  
IV)matches all notes of IV chord except the 2nd  
V)leaves 2nd and 3rd notes of the shuffle (V and VI relative to "A" or V) unmatched.  
 
DBlues  
The tritone (G#) doesn't appear in the shuffle.  
I expected it to be worse sounding.  
 
I would really appreciate comments on all of these,  
even if it's just to say I'm getting nowhere trying these reasonings.  

I'm going to move you down to the theory forum and see if Noteboat checks in with some answers! ;)

Thanks, Tim!

The topic doesn't seem to be all that interesting.
If anybody thinks all this approach is somehow wrong please say why.

I found this comment regarding the Chord Progression
(utterly documented Beatles' ressource):
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/covers2.html#q3

"There's a minor variation here on the standard blues formula in the way that the chord progression of the last four measures of the twelve-bar pattern is played as IV -» V -» I instead of V -» IV -» I. This is actually much easier to hear on the Beatles' version than the original, though I believe they both play it the same way."

But why do they do it?
Do I have to hear something strictly different from standard 12 bar blues? Or may I be right in saying it's a bit easier?

Seeing as John Lennon is one of the greatest rhythm guitarists of all times, I doubt he played it this way because it was "easier". It is more likely he just liked the way it sounded. If it sounds good, it is good.

Hi, Wes!

I appreciate your answer.

Please don't be annoyed by what I am about to tell you. Besides, you are the first person to answer in a while.

I am trying to understand why John decided to play his Rickenbacker in that particular fashion (in other regards Chuck or George). If I accept what you say, I'll have to wait until I am as good as him (which is going to take a little while) to play like that or else just bump into some musical combination that sounds as nice.

Neither Chuck nor the Beatles were without musical background. Although some of the most creative personalities in history, they thoroughly knew what blues structure implied, and that was not their creation.
By this I mean the finding was not such, they didn't randomly find all those "stylings".

I'm trying to find some path to educate my musical feeling at least so as to feel what "sounds good". And I just can't argue that what sound goods, sounds good. But is there a why at all?

Please check the other bunch of questions.
Do I have to just keep working by feeling or will I find a reasoning behind all the questions I have posed?

Thanks again

Happy Thanksgiving Estambre!

I have been playing guitar 30 years and am basically self taught. This is not to say I don't study, because I do. But music is not something you can understand like math, although it is math.

I read an article once that said Music Theory is basically tried-and-true what sounds good. Why does a Dsus4 chord naturally resolve to a D Major? Who knows? But it sounds good. A lot of this is culture, what we are familiar with. A different culture has different scales and progressions.

Chuck Berry was basically playing the Boogie Woogie piano of the 40's with a Country twist. He was imitating the piano bass. But these were sounds he was familiar with. I don't think he was concerned with Theory whatsoever, nor the Beatles. I believe they both played by ear. I read once that Paul MacCartney would sit at the piano for days trying to find a chord he had in his head. Berry and the Beatles were not musical scholars.

I am not saying study is useless. It is very valuable. The greatest advantage is that you will be exposed to sounds you would never think of yourself. You draw upon the experience of millions over the centuries. You can also learn proper technique, which was discovered by trial and error, that will enable you to play the sounds in your head. But it still comes down to what sounds good.

One last thing, I read another article once where a lady who had been playing piano very many years and was very knowledgeable saw a piano player in a club who had very limited technique and knowledge. But she was amazed because this person had the confidence to play in front of people and she didn't. She realized that she had sort of paralyzed herself because she viewed music as very complicated, where this other person viewed it simply and just went out and played their best. This is me. I am a good guitar player, but I'm no Steve Vai. But I have been playing in front of people for years. I currently play guitar and sing in a Classic Rock band. My only concern is that the music sound good.

Thanks for listening.    Wes

Can you always play the scale that corresponds to a song's key over it? If this is D Major, would D Major as a scale be fit?  
That's usually true.  Exceptions occur when the chord changes modulate outside the key, but as a general rule the major scale of the tonal center will work.
Can I say the same about the relative minor scale (B min)?  
Yes.  You're shifting the tonal center down, but the individual notes are identical to a major scale.  If you're doing this against a chord progression that's clearly major, you're really soloing in the Aeolian mode of the key.  If you moved to some other tonal center, like F#, you'd be in some other mode, (in this case F# Phrygian)
What about the Blues scale? Can it generally replace the Major scale?  
If the progression is I-IV-V, like Roll Over Beethoven, yes.  It can be used in other situations for 'flavor', but it works best with primary chords.
Is there a Major Blues scale? What are its "blue" notes?  
Every musical tradition has its own scales.  Indian raga music has dozens... blues has one.   It's neither major or minor, even though the lowered third gives it a minor quality -- it's just the blues scale.

Tom

Wes, that's what ive been trying to say the whole time! FINALLY! Im glad there's someone in here who gets that theory isnt crucial, but just good to have.

I think people get confused regarding theory because they regard it as prescriptive when in reality it is descriptive.  It's a tool that lets us describe strutures and thus is helpful for letting us find names for patterns and conventions.  But innovation stretches or breaks the rules and creates new structures -- the hallmark of creativity.  Creative interaction discovers new possibilities within the old rules -- exactly what Chuck Berry did with the 12 bar blues to create rock n roll and what the Beatles in turn did with Roll over Beethoven.  (Btw, Pollack's notes on the songs, which Estambre found in the Dutch journal Soundscapes, are widely regarded as an excellent resources).

I am in no way putting down Estambre and his efforts to understand music. I went through a period like that myself. I learned many sounds and techniques through study I probably never would have discovered myself. But study has limits. Music is an art.

Comparing music to art, could anyone imagine giving a painter a set of rules on which colors can be used together? That would be laughable. Theory would be the fact that red and blue mixed together makes purple. What you do with that color is up to you.

I saw John Lennon once talking about articles that had been written by music critics about the Beatles music. These writers were praising the Beatles using fancy Classical terms to describe their music. John just laughed and said he didn't even understand what these terms meant, he just wrote music that sounded good to him!!

Hi, everybody!

Thanks for all your answers.
"If you want to give Rock and Roll another name you might just call it Chuck Berry", Lennon dixit.

That means if you want to know what R'n'R is all about you absolutely need to know Chuck's jumping little records.

Hey, what about
"If you want to give 'learning to play the guitar' another name you might just call it 'Guitar Noise'"
as a  slogan for the site?

Back to our subject:
The fact that you can use a system of signs (music)doesn't imply you need to use another particular sign system (notation) in order to analyze it. I mean, these guys couldn't allegedly read music (I wonder how come not, knowing I can). But their genre-knowledge was so vast that they let a revolution happen. Somehow they could analyze music (and regurgitate it). I believe they had some way to represent it (mentally or otherwise) that was equivalent to notation. They had acquired the insight into music without notation.
Or there's something else that nobody can trace involved (God, Fate, paranormal powers...). And in that case we shouldn't bother trying to study theory; it would a matter of having that power.

But I am convinced that aside from mere chance, there's a positive reason for things to happen. At some level these guys had a mental image (different to both actual music and notation) of what music was about. Through this image they could understand and analize music without notation.

Regarding us beginners (I don't mean those answering, I mean me and other real beginners) maybe we just need to see innerly (hear rather) so as to perceive what's going on, as opposed to seeing it in notation.
I also want my bit of systematic 'insight'.

That's why I was sort of trying to consider every chord-shuffle as a mini-scale and check what effects the "standard scales" had on them.  

I know David is quite busy these days, but perhaps he could give some reason why he reverted into the standard V-IV-I pattern in his lesson instead of IV-V-I, if there is a why at all.
He may also have some suggestions regarding turnarounds besides what is given in his "Kansas City" lesson. The shuffle is played without turnarounds in both versions, but how would you go about the 'most used turnaround' playing so fast? Is there an alternative?

Something weird regarding scales and such:
I was playing last night at home when I noticed that the tritone makes everything vibrate loudly in the room, whereas you won't hear anything with other notes. Why is that so? People need a context to contrast things, but why is that the only note that causes that noise. It was not the guitar nor the amp. They were the things inside cupboards, pictures on walls... Very strange indeed.

Please, somebody tell me if the conclusions from my experiment with scales are close to right. Can I get to feel and isolate these effects by deconstructing the song?

Another thing: is singing the scales worthwhile or should I just try to recognize them?

Thanks

As all of you know I'm learning the solos in this song. If I can achieve it (I'm using that tab on top of the page combined with "The Beatles' Scores" and another Chuck Berry song-book), I will write something on how to play them (which might be a bit hard if you are just using tab) and maybe also something on how the pentatonic is used, left aside, etc. in the original song. I wouldn't be able to do this by ear, but I can (well, anybody could) with the transcription.
This is going to have to wait cause I'm slow but I'm working on it.

Thanks and tell Tchaikowski the news