# Soloing "out"?



## Seedawakener (Jul 5, 2008)

Iv'e been quite intrigued with this Jazz phenomenon lately. When I started listening to Brett Garsed I realized it could be VERY useful when soloing. The thing is I want to learn doing it but in a good way. I don't just want to hit random notes not included in the scale, so anyone with a bit of theory, help a brother out! Any ideas or tips on this subject?


----------



## telecaster90 (Jul 6, 2008)

I know some theory, so I'll see if I can help you out.

The key to soloing in general is chord tones. Let's say we're soloing over a C7 vamp. Our chord tones would be the 1, the 3, the 5, and the b7. Any scale that has a 1, 3, 5, and b7 would work. The obvious scale to use would be mixolydian, but that's not very outside! Off the top of my head, an outside scale for a 7 chord would be Phyrigian Dominant (1-b2-3-4-5-b6-b7)
This scale would imply a b9 chord because of the b2. I also read in a thread here that you could use the phyrigian mode, which is phyrigian dominant with a b3. In that case, you would treat the b3 as a #2, which would be pretty outside.

There's all sorts of possibilities depending on how far outside you want to go. Just remember that the key to playing outside is resolving the notes in the right way.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jul 20, 2008)

Hell, sorry I missed this thread...

This is a huge topic, and there are lots of ways to go about approaching it.

I'd highly recommend Scott Henderson's 'Jazz-Rock Mastery' if you're new to this style of playing, as it covers a lot of the common concepts fusion musicians use when playing 'out' and makes them very accessible.

As Telecaster said, the main thing to think about is chord tones; most outside lines work because they resolve to a note from the underlying chord at a key point, which makes them sound slick and sophisticated, whereas if you just played the same outside line, but finished it on say, the b2 of the chord, in all likelihood it would just sound like you didn't know what key you were in (unless of course the b2 is actually a part of said chord, but hopefully you see what I mean).

I good place to start if just adding chromatic notes to your usual diatonic modes and experimenting with the effect each 'in between' note has over the home chord. Once you start hearing the effect each one has, they'll start cropping up naturally in your improvisations, and will probably function as a gateway to using some of the wierder melodic minor modes in your soloing.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

Confidence is key. In jazz the in has to be in and the out has to be in, and if you lose sight of that for a second the world explodes.

Jeff


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Confidence is key. In jazz the in has to be in and the out has to be in, and if you lose sight of that for a second the world explodes.



Not necessarily, young Grasshopper. 

But you're right about the confidence factor.

Truly playing 'out' (and not just adding a few accidentals to a harmonic framework) is a completely different state of mind. First step: throw most of that theory shit out the window. You are playing melodies and runs that are harmonically self-contained and do NOT have to be intentionally related to what the other instruments are doing. The beauty of 'out' is the subconscious interaction between the players and the wonder of serendipity. Despite not relying overtly on theory, playing 'out' well DOES require that you be able to listen and interact with the context. Rhythm becomes much more important.

My experience is that guitarists are the worst 'out' players on Earth because we have some part of our personality that always wants to "color between the lines." Sax players seem to get into the spirit more easily, and even pianists seem to find the out groove more easily. Play more with your heart, and less with your brain if you want to go 'out'.

To hear what I'm talking about, I recommend picking up some listening material:

Ornette Coleman - "Free Jazz"
Cecil Taylor - "Conquistador!"
Sam Rivers - "Waves". This the easiest of his small-group free jazz albums to find, and I recommend "Crystals" in addition to that for a mind-blowing expedition into an entire big band playing 'out'.


----------



## bulletbass man (Jul 20, 2008)

They key to soloing out is falling back in. Jazz has tons of dissonance in it. However the goal is to resolve it with cossanance. However some players will purposely in with dissonant playing to make a "statement" i guess it would be called. Often players will play a note which is very dissonant in the chord before and hold it till the next chord which it sounds good in. Or play a note that is very dissonant to the chord before hand but resolve it with a small step in either direction which fits either the next chord or they do so within the chord progression. The use of chromatics will always lead to a few dissonant notes but may over all sound quite nice. There is no real easy way to explain jazz verbally. It's more of something you find out by playing it.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

"Consonance".

And to clarify the 'in is in and out is in', Jacksonplayer, if you don't think you're playing the right thing the audience will know. In is subjective, all that philosophical hoobiejoobie, I was making the point about confidence primarily.

Jeff


----------



## bulletbass man (Jul 20, 2008)

^I'm aware it was spelled wrong but was too lazy too fix it.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 21, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Jacksonplayer, if you don't think you're playing the right thing the audience will know.



If the audience is looking for the 'right' notes from a bunch of outside players, then they are probably at the wrong club. 

If one prefers to be only partially outside, then I suppose one can always live by the old blues man's axiom that it doesn't really matter what notes you play, so long as you begin and end on the right ones.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 21, 2008)

What I was saying was just about confidence. You can make anything the right note, the 'wrong' (outside) note, or the 'really wrong' (lets the audience know you're a twit) note. Tough to say it right, isn't it...

Jeff


----------



## S-O (Jul 21, 2008)

Go buy the Omnibook in C concert, it it a bunch of Charlie Parker tunes and solos transcribed. Learn them on the guitar and dissect the solos and figure out what he is doing. He is the king of soloing with outside tones, infact the first one to really explore it like he did. He played off alterations on the chord and superimposed arps, all that fancy ass shiz. And he has great rhythmic flow.

Then, go transcribe a bunch or John Coltrane tunes, that cat is a monster.


----------



## Scali (Jul 21, 2008)

jacksonplayer said:


> My experience is that guitarists are the worst 'out' players on Earth because we have some part of our personality that always wants to "color between the lines." Sax players seem to get into the spirit more easily, and even pianists seem to find the out groove more easily.


 
Yea, I fully agree with that. I myself am mainly a guitarist, I suppose, even though I do play sax and keys aswell.
One of my main inspirations for sax is Candy Dulfer (who in turn is heavily inspired by David Sanborn). And some of her phrases are just completely mindblowing, make me think "How the heck does she come up with that?". No idea where it comes from. I'm trying to apply it on guitar, but so far I've not been too successful.
I think George Benson is one of the few guitarists that manages to sound not like a guitarist, if you know what I mean.


----------



## S-O (Jul 21, 2008)

Scali said:


> Yea, I fully agree with that. I myself am mainly a guitarist, I suppose, even though I do play sax and keys aswell.
> One of my main inspirations for sax is Candy Dulfer (who in turn is heavily inspired by David Sanborn). And some of her phrases are just completely mindblowing, make me think "How the heck does she come up with that?". No idea where it comes from. I'm trying to apply it on guitar, but so far I've not been too successful.
> I think George Benson is one of the few guitarists that manages to sound not like a guitarist, if you know what I mean.



meh, if a guitarist manages to solo out and still jive, then they are called Allan Holdsworth copycats.

Derryl Gabel is a guy who I have seen pegged as a AH copy. 

But then again, many "fusion" guitar players stray from the jazz end of things and stick to the rock side.


----------



## Luan (Jul 21, 2008)

A big NO for soloing in or out, is: never resolve on an avoid note.
Except if you want to make it sound like you don't know what are you doing.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 21, 2008)

JBroll said:


> What I was saying was just about confidence. You can make anything the right note, the 'wrong' (outside) note, or the 'really wrong' (lets the audience know you're a twit) note. Tough to say it right, isn't it...



It turns out we're really saying the same thing, which is cool.



Luan said:


> A big NO for soloing in or out, is: never resolve on an avoid note.
> Except if you want to make it sound like you don't know what are you doing.



It depends on the gig. If I'm playing with Ornette Coleman or Cecil Taylor, I'd sure as hell better not land on the conventional 'right' note, or I'll quickly be searching for another gig. 

I guess there are various stages of playing outside. Adding some outside notes into a conventional, resolving set of changes (pretty much the Holdsworth approach) is a very cool way of adding some pizzazz to music that can otherwise be bland.

But playing completely outside gets you into Fred Frith or Derek Bailey territory pretty quickly. You have to think about music entirely differently to do that. It's pretty hard to rely on a road map of chord changes when there is no road. 

If I seem emphatic about this issue, it's because I just started work on an album that (hopefully) mixes free jazz, funk, and psychedelia. I've spent the past several months thinking about this exact subject and pulling in new influences.

I cannot overstate my belief that playing (totally) outside is a philosophy, not a method. You might or might not hit harmonic nodes with the other instruments, but the key is that you are interacting with them on a basis other than harmony--mostly rhythm. It requires a big set of ears to pull off convincingly.


----------



## Luan (Jul 21, 2008)

jacksonplayer said:


> It depends on the gig. If I'm playing with Ornette Coleman or Cecil Taylor, I'd sure as hell better not land on the conventional 'right' note, or I'll quickly be searching for another gig.



Resolving on avoid notes, or letting them sound too much in a phrase, or playing an avoid note going to another avoid note, etc is not even outside, it's sounds horrible, you have to know pretty well how to control them if you want to use them, and that is not easy at all, it will sound like an error rather than outside.
It's not about the right notes only, avoid notes are like wrong notes plain, and if nobody believes me, just go ahead and try for yourself.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 21, 2008)

Maybe it's just the contrarian in me. If someone tells me that I should avoid certain notes, those automatically become the ones I'm most interested in.


----------



## Drew (Jul 21, 2008)

jacksonplayer said:


> If one prefers to be only partially outside, then I suppose one can always live by the old blues man's axiom that it doesn't really matter what notes you play, so long as you begin and end on the right ones.



 I think this is the secret to Vernon Reid's sucess, too.  

Intentionally doing things wrong is an interesting way to get started - one of the most accessible ways to add "outside" color I was suggested to try while I was trying to learn this stuff (disclosure - I failed ) was to simply play a scale run or arpeggio a half step flat over a tense V chord. I.e - in the key of C, drop a Gb mixolydian run over a G7 of sorts, and then come out with a half step shift into a chord tone to resolve back to the C. 

One of the few things I really learned while studying under a jazz player in college is that really, you can play anything over _anything_ provided you can find a way to make it resolve.


----------



## Drew (Jul 21, 2008)

Seedawakener said:


> I don't just want to hit random notes not included in the scale, so anyone with a bit of theory, help a brother out!



Here's another thought. Again, disclosure time, I'm really no jazz/fusion master and I'm normally a pretty diatonic guy. 

The secret, near as I understand, to pulling off really outside stuff is to make it NOT sound random. I.e. - the difference between a cool outside run and a guy hitting random notes is when you listen to the line, you hear something in it that sounds like order even if it's not consonant order. 

That suggestion to try a scale run a half step outside the key center is certainly one way to do that. Another would be to chose an intervallic pattern and repeat it on random tones - say, play a random note and then play it's major third, then play another random note and then play ITS major third, etc. Or, do the same with a series of notes or a short phrase. 

Play mind games, maybe. Like, come up with a bunch of phrases, "ascending major thirds," "parallel 6ths," "alternating major and minor diads," whatver, and then pick up your guitar and think of something that fits that description. Build a bunch of licks like this, and then find some way to resolve to a consonant chord tone of the chord you're resolving to. 

Hell, even make geometric shapes on the fretboard and play patterns based on that. 

Or, in short, don't play "random" pitches, but the pitches don't have to be ordered with respect to tonality. There are alternate forms of order.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 21, 2008)

Drew said:


> One of the few things I really learned while studying under a jazz player in college is that really, you can play anything over _anything_ provided you can find a way to make it resolve.





The other weekend, I was impromptu jamming along with this jazz keyboardist at a local music store--he was testing out a workstation by programming a funky little beat and progression into the sequencer. He complimented me on my playing over the changes. I laughed, because I had absolutely no idea what changes, or even what key, he was in. Basically, I was just ending on the right note. 

He was down with that, and relayed the story of a very gifted player he knew who claimed he'd been ruined as a jazz player by deeply absorbing the rules of jazz theory--his playing became mechanical and safe within the established rules rather than flowing and inspired.

Another anecdote. I saw one of Coltrane's old colleagues, bassist Reggie Workman, in concert several months ago. He teaches jazz, and he introduced a Coltrane tune by talking about having his young students learn and analyze the solos on the original recording, but pointing out to them that Coltrane and his band almost certainly played it all off the cuff and didn't spend a bunch of time anguishing over the theory. When you're writing, I think having the theory at your command is a very good thing. But I also think that it's a dangerous thing as a soloist. You can't really "think" a great solo--you have to feel it.

Playing outside is just taking that concept to a further level. Once jazz got very harmonically sophisticated and rigid in the mid-'50s, everybody from Miles Davis to Coltrane to Ornette Coleman spent the next ten years figuring out ways to get out from under that complicated web they'd managed to weave for themselves. As a rock guy with no background or interest in playing ii-V-I, I'm very sympathetic with them.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 21, 2008)

Knowing theory is like knowing English well - you can make valid points either way, but just using knowledge of the language (or, alternatively, the 'rawness' you think you have because you don't know what your talking about) without a point to make is asking for trouble.

Jeff


----------



## Luan (Jul 21, 2008)

jacksonplayer said:


> Playing outside is just taking that concept to a further level. Once jazz got very harmonically sophisticated and rigid in the mid-'50s, everybody from Miles Davis to Coltrane to Ornette Coleman spent the next ten years figuring out ways to get out from under that complicated web they'd managed to weave for themselves. As a rock guy with no background or interest in playing ii-V-I, I'm very sympathetic with them.


If you don't have a background or interest in playing jazz, don't make suggestions please.
It's like if I make a thread about sweep picking and someone comes posts what he thinks it's the coolest way of doing it, and 3 posts later he confesses that he "don't have a background or interest in playing sweep picking".
I'm not trying to fight you at all, remember that.
Jazz is a language, you have to accept that, you can in fact play over hard progressions and make it sound even if you don't have any idea of anything that you are playing, but that can work or not, it depends if you are lucky or not, and I personally, don't like to let luck influence my playing.
Maybe coltrane didn't talked about theory with his bandmembers, but he knew it! of course he knew it!
Or do you think that he used random subtitutions and they magically sounded "right"?
The misconception that outside playing is anything you want should end right now.
What if I said that shredding is about to play anything with no sense at high speed? without thinking about what you are playing?
I will continue later as I have to go right now.
But please, think about this.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 21, 2008)

Erm... jazz goes beyond ii-V-I.

Far beyond it.

Further, he's shown himself to be knowledgeable about it.

JBroll disapproves of misguided rant.

Jeff


----------



## S-O (Jul 21, 2008)

I mapped out all arps ranging from triads to 13's, Then compared them to how they alter/sound over a static I chord, like C maj. I did the same for minor, the 7ths and beyond chords and the effect of the arps are easy to identify.

So, diatonic wise, playing an Emin over Cmaj will give you a major 7th sound. Playing a G maj will give you a major 9th sound. Playing a A minor 7 will give a 13th sound. Playing a Fmaj 7 will give a 11th sound.

Non-diatonic arps, like an Emin maj7 will give a Cmaj7 #9 sound. A G dim7 chord will give a C7 b9 sound. an A maj 7 will give a Cmaj b9 13 sound. Similar things can be done to minor chords.

Dominants are cool to do all the REALLY crazy shit too, since it will generaly resolve to the I or continue on with more II V to come to a new key or some shiz. This way you are pretty much diatonic over the ii but building up to the V, which is where you can just let loose with all your ascending altered scale legato licks, followed by a flurry of insane arps from all over the western harmonic boudnries and outskirts, bordering on the avant gard, then come in nice and smooth like landing with that orgasmic finishing lick/idea over the I, or continue the ii V madness untill a I pops up XD

But since I am a metal head, I have to try hard as hell to imply chord changes
yet often come up with silly sounding things.

Edit: after reading the posts that snuck in while I was typing...

No need to be a dick about someone posting in a forum and being modest of his abilities and knowledge. Regardless of your intentions, the post comes across hostile and uncalled for.

The part you quoted really did not reflect a negative or derogatory statement upon Jazz. Maybe he said something else somewhere that I didn't see that says "I hate jazz and anything complicated", and if he did I apologize. Regardless negativity met with negativity leads to more negativity, perhaps just as my post will probably come of negatively.

 the hatin', if someone wants to keep to the pentatonic scale, then so be it, pentatonics are orgasmic. SO what if the average rock song doesn't traverse 12 keys, the highbrow folks of jazz lamenting on the simplicity of I IV V is no better than rockers saying jazz is for old people.

On the idea of not learning music theory: fine, whatever works. But "You can't really "think" a great solo--you have to feel it.
" just doesn't fly with everyone, IMO not knowing any Theory is like tryiong to "feel" your way through a pitch black room. With the lights on (music theory) you can arrange the furniture and sit wherever and however you want, and can avoid or touch anything in the room.


----------



## Luan (Jul 21, 2008)

If my post sounds negative it is because of my lack in english.
This is the only forum where I post regularly, and a lot of times I know how negative they sound, but I don't know how to fix that, it's not my intention.
--
At the end of the day anybody can do whatever he wants with his playing, but I don't agree at all at that thinking of "just play it will be fine no matter what happens".


----------



## S-O (Jul 21, 2008)

Had me fooled!  You speak (write?[type?]) it just as well if not better than I do 

Also, I bet my post came off as if I was being a total douche bag. I think I called you a dick XD, but nah just using it as a more colourful word than jerk, a substitution 

I also agree to a certain extent on "just play it will be fine no matter what happens", for a beginner that just wants to jam a bit, this is a great thing. Just pick it up and wail on the pentatonic scale you found a diagram of the internet for XD

But after that, I think that you ought to apply yourself and learn everything you can/want. Random soloing will only get you so far. Also, I bet jacksonplayer knows more then he lets on  Being able to blow over changes well is a skill itself. Whether you truly know that you played a dimined arp folwed by ascending 4ths followed by the ole blues lick in A minor doesn't really change the fact that you did them and they sounded kick ass.

I play trumpet aswell, and another trumpet guy who know nothing about theory compared to me can blow over tunes and come up with killer ideas, lucky for me I can hear what he is doing and steal licks XD then I play a lick based on some of his ideas/motifs but with a bit more colour (read: less balls, more weedly weedly except the trumpet version) and he is like "yeah man, that kciked ass! What was that one lick that went do ba do bwee doop doodlydo ba dweedly dodado or some shiz like that nad I am like, thats the lick you played at 5 bars in to your solo, except with some rhythmic ornamentation and blah blah blah... 

Anywas,  s'all good,


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 21, 2008)

Interesting discussion to have in a thread about playing outside. 

I never studied jazz theory and have always written and played modally. For that reason, I don't call myself a jazz guitarist, even though I have absorbed much jazz influence over the years. Still, my music is improvisation-based, and my method is to do whatever facilitates free-flowing and inspired improvisation. All of that structure didn't prove a hindrance to Bird and Dizzy playing amazing solos, but it's not the way my muse works. Obviously, I'd never make it as a jazz sideman or session player. But then again, I have no desire to take such a radical pay cut. 

I have toyed around a little with playing changes, but I find it to be too confining for my needs. For that reason, I perfectly understand why Miles and Coltrane worked to destroy the very jazz structure that they helped create. Intellectually, I appreciate the ability to play complicated changes. Spiritually, I'm more drawn to the world of A Love Supreme or Ascension than to Giant Steps.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone who learns mega-theory is going to suck as a soloist. Obviously, that's not the case. But I do think that the danger of over-thinking things exists, and this is true for musicians in all genres. My personal, totally biased opinion is that guitarists are heavily prone to over-thinking. And that includes yours truly.


----------



## S-O (Jul 21, 2008)

Over thinking is a great way to put it. I agree with that. Maybe not in the same way though 

When people new to improvising start, they try to cram all they can into their solo. But I also think that a certain amount of thinking is required, even with your free flowing improv style. You think in a different way though, I think lol That way seems to be in a state of floatin. But I really doubt you are playing randomly, atleast I doubt since I haven;t heard it! But any clips would be awesome! Back on topic, perhaps it's my one dimensional thinking of the subject that leads me to think this way, but I assume you have licks and phrases just like I do, but they are differnt in form and function.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 21, 2008)

S-O said:


> Over thinking is a great way to put it. I agree with that. Maybe not in the same way though
> 
> When people new to improvising start, they try to cram all they can into their solo. But I also think that a certain amount of thinking is required, even with your free flowing improv style. You think in a different way though, I think lol That way seems to be in a state of floatin. But I really doubt you are playing randomly, atleast I doubt since I haven;t heard it! But any clips would be awesome! Back on topic, perhaps it's my one dimensional thinking of the subject that leads me to think this way, but I assume you have licks and phrases just like I do, but they are differnt in form and function.



Oh yeah, that's all true. Click here for some examples of what I do--though much more conservative than where I'm going at the moment. The "floating" analogy is a very apt description of the lead lines I hear in my head.

My current set of pet phrases revolves around some bastardized whole-tone ideas, coupled with lots of phrygian and dorian all over the place. Why? Why not! 

At heart, I'm really a rocker, and you can hear that in my phrasing.


----------



## Luan (Jul 22, 2008)

There is this quote of coltrane that said something like "learn all the theory, then forget it".
It should never be reversed.
What that means is: at your home, study, practice, work hard. work very hard, until you can let it flow without thinking anymore, but still doing it right.
THAT should be the way that anybody should play jazz or any other style.
You must be still conscious of what are you playing, but it will be a lot more easy, more musical, etc.
Or your outside or whatever playing, will sound too structured, badly connected, etc.
I still think exactly the same I did when I posted before, but this is a perspective that some of you seem to don't understand.
Scofield have said that he never thinks "ok, i'm gonna play this lick in lydian b7", but he thinks in musical terms, in sound.
He still knows what a "lydian b7" scale or whatever is, he knows it so well that he can let it sound alone, that is something to learn, for me, and I think for everybody.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jul 22, 2008)

Luan said:


> There is this quote of coltrane that said something like "learn all the theory, then forget it".
> It should never be reversed.



Of course, after Coltrane learned it and then forgot it, he proceeded to abandon it altogether a few years later. That's pretty much where I come in. 

If studying the many ways that people in the '50s made crazy alterations to the ii-V-I progression helps you find your muse, then that is exactly what you should do. And neither I nor anyone else have the right to criticize that.

For my purposes, however, doing that has about as much relevance as studying Baroque counterpoint. Doing either would probably make me a better, more knowledgeable musician. However, the "return on investment" would be rather low for me, since my muse speaks to me in a different way.

The way I see it, progressive jazz made a very sharp left turn around 1960. Some of us are down with that and some aren't. I admire and enjoy pre-modal jazz, but I don't "feel" it as a musician.


----------



## Luan (Jul 22, 2008)

Er.. I'm not interested to be a "jazz musician" considering what that means.
I'm more interested in fusion, but I do study jazz, and for me, learning to play over changes is awesome, as do modal music is awesome too.
But as much freedom there is with modal, there are limits. The same goes for "standart jazz".
One thing is sure, if you learn one, you will not learn the other, both are different things.
And the funny thing is, that you must learn how to follow the "modal changes" anyway!


----------

