Theory isn't always the answer, and it doesn't help in the ways that you imagine it would.
Beginner
Intermediate
- Develop a larger chord vocabulary
- Learn how to voice lead through a IIm7–V7–I progression.
- Understand how to alter dominant chords.
We're going to look at a simple jazz progression and talk about the struggle to make sense of some of these moves in the context of music theory. I want you to leave this lesson with new ways to think about chord progressions, and perhaps a different way to think about music theory.
Every year, I record something for the holidays to send to family and friends. It's almost always a solo guitar piece, or something I do alone with a backing track. It's a nice tradition that forces me to flex my chord chops in a way that I don't always get a chance to use during the year.
This year, I was approached by a vocalist that I had not worked with before to do a duet and I happily said yes. She wanted to cover the classic "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," which was a song that I had done a chord-melody version of years ago. When I went to lay down the chord tracks, I had a bunch of realizations that I wanted to roll into a lesson.
The “Starter” Progression
For "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," the singer asked to do it in G major. Being a pretty jazzy tune, it's grounded in the most common jazz progression, the IIm7–V7–I. In the case of G major, that's Am–D–G and since it's jazz, we're going to extend it into all 7th chords: Am7–D7–Gmaj7. Ex. 1 shows you where I started.
Connecting Chords Ex. 1
One of the challenges for me was that I had worked up an arrangement years ago where I was playing the chords and the melody all at the same time. Now that I had a vocalist, I had to let her take the melody, and pick chords that didn't interfere with that melody. I also really wanted the chords to be more interesting than just the same stock shapes above, especially considering how often that progression came up in the song.
Let’s Connect
A simple way that you can make your chords sound a bit more interesting is to connect the chords together in the smoothest way possible. This is called voice leading, and while you can get quite advanced about this, you can also do some incredibly simple voice leading that make a big impact. To begin with, let's just focus on the highest note in the chords, which in the case of Ex. 1, is 100 percent on the 2nd string. The top voice started with an E in the Am7, went down to a D in the D7, and then stayed put as a D in the Gmaj7.
Let's try something different. Let's connect the Am7 and D7 chords by keeping the E the same between the two chords. If we think about it as notes, it might get a little confusing, but if we look at closer, it's actually really simple. Just take the D7 chord you know and love and change the highest note from D to E. Don't change any of the other notes in the chords. That's it. Don't think about it any deeper than that. Just play it and listen to it (Ex. 2).
Connecting Chords Ex. 2
Sounds good, doesn't it? It's because you're only changing one note, and you're keeping that note consistent between the two chords, which in turn makes them connect with better voice leading. You only changed one note! Now let's throw the Gmaj7 back into the mix to hear what all three sound like together (Ex. 3).
Connecting Chords Ex. 3
Simple to See & Hard to Communicate
The good news is that by changing your D7 chord to have an E as the highest note, you've made a more advanced V chord with interesting voice leading that sounds better. The downside is that you made the chord more complicated to name. This is one of the things that I was wrestling with as I was working out the arrangement. Many of these moves that I was doing in my progressions were actually really simple to explain if I didn't have analyze them with traditional music theory. I was just moving a finger here and there, picking notes that connected the chords, and grounding it all with things that sounded good.
I wondered what theory was good for, and why it mattered that Ex. 2 has a D9 chord? Music theory in this example is really a means for communication to the outside world. If it's just you at home, and there's nobody to talk to, you don't have to give the chord a name at all if you don't want to. You can do whatever it is that you want to do.
If you do have to talk about it, you'll need to pick some way of communicating what you played. One way is tab, and that's a really popular way to explain guitar music. You could also do traditional written notation. You can also give it a chord symbol, like D9. The point I am trying to illustrate here is that the thing that inspired us to make this more complex named chord wasn't the name; that was only an artifact of having to label it and communicate it. We just wanted to connect those two chords together and make them sound more interesting.
What Else Can We Do?
Throughout the song, I came back to that simple progression what felt like 100 times. To keep it fresh, I tried to change things up a little. Here are a few ways that I took that progression and generated more ideas. One time through the progression, I wanted the top note to not move at all, so, I kept the E the same in all three chords (Ex. 4).
Connecting Chords Ex. 4
I love how the top note grounds the progression together as the rest of the notes move around. Pinning the E to all three chords resulted in the progression turning into Am7–D9–Gmaj13. A really simple concept resulted in more advanced chords. Don't let that stop you or scare you. Play the chords. Listen to them. If you like them, use them. The theory is only there when you need to convey them as chord symbols. It's absolutely possible that someone will listen to you play them, ask what they were and you'll simply say, "I took these basic chords and refigured them to have E as the top note for each." Not knowing that it's a Gmaj13–or why–shouldn't stop you from playing them, or exploring this concept of messing around with basic chords to extend them. Truth be told, there's a zillion different ways to play Am7–D9–Gmaj13, so, just labeling your progression as such won't fully explain what you did. Chord diagrams are actually a much better way to do that. Theory is so often not the answer.
Let's try the same progression and this time, let's pin the D and connect it to every chord—we will end up with Ex. 5:
Connecting Chords Ex. 5
I really like this progression because the first chord just sounds beautiful as an Am11—it's one of my favorite chords and I use it all the time. But it's still a IIm–V7–I.
Let's try a different idea. Instead of pinning a single note in the chords, let's try to descend from E down to D. To do so, we will end up with a really neat chord, the D7b9, which by itself isn't exactly beautiful, but in the context of this progression works so well. It works because you get E–Eb–D as the top voice of the chords, stepping down by half-steps. Check it out as Am7–D7b9–Gmaj7 (Ex. 6).
Connecting Chords Ex. 6
That one was about descending the top voice. Let's try one last idea where we ascend it and see what happens (Ex. 7).
Connecting Chords Ex. 7
We start with the Am7 with the E on top and head into our next new chord, the D7#9, adding an E# (or F) to the top of the chord. We finish it off with a physically hard chord, still a Gmaj7, but in a more spread voicing. You end up with a beautiful ascending voice of E–E#–F#.
If that felt evil and unplayable, you can get the same effect with Ex. 8, which doesn't have exactly the same voice leading but does retain the top note and is still a very nice way to go.
Connecting Chords Ex. 8
To close with, let's look at a much more advanced example—well, actually, it's only advanced when we have to name it. The concept is really simple. Instead of moving the note on the second string around to connect our chords together, this time I'm going to smoothly connect the bass note. Check out Ex. 9.
Connecting Chords Ex. 9
Our progression changed from a standard Am7–D7–Gmaj7 to an Am11–Ab7b5–Gmaj7! This is a really cool technique called a tritone substitution where Ab7 can substitute for D7 since it's a tritone (b5) away. But don't overthink it, the top three strings of the Ab7b5 are the same as the top three strings of the D7 it replaces. We simply connect the bass notes down in half-steps to create a smooth bass line. Since the top notes are the same ones that we already know and love, our ears fully accept it. You could even reasonably call this a D7/Ab and you wouldn't be wrong. You can use this approach (and these chord shapes) for any IIm7–V7–I where your IIm7 chord starts with a 6th-string root like each of our previous examples. And there is more we can do—try making some new chord progressions and applying the principles learned here and see what you come up with.
Summing It Up
You can do so much with that simple progression just by being creative. Changing one note in the chord can have a big impact on the sound, and if you try to apply some principles such as keeping a single note consistent between the chords, or trying to ascend or descend the top note, you can end up with really wonderful chords that all fit the progression but give you a ton of new sonic options.
- Rhythm Rules: 5 Ways to Make Your Chords Cooler - Premier Guitar ... ›
- The Guitarist's Guide to the CAGED System - Premier Guitar ›
- Spice Up Your Cowboy Chords - Premier Guitar | The best guitar ... ›
- Spice Up Your Cowboy Chords - Premier Guitar ›
- Spice Up Your Cowboy Chords - Premier Guitar ›
Day 6 of Stompboxtober is here! Today’s prize? A pedal from Revv Amplification! Enter now and check back tomorrow for the next one!
Revv G3 Purple Channel Preamp/Overdrive/Distortion Pedal - Anniversary Edition
The Revv G3 revolutionized high gain pedals in 2018 with its tube-like response & tight, clear high gain tones. Suddenly the same boutique tones used by metal artists & producers worldwide were available to anyone in a compact pedal. Now the G3 returns with a new V2 circuit revision that raises the bar again.
A twist on the hard-to-find Ibanez MT10 that captures the low-gain responsiveness of the original and adds a dollop of more aggressive sounds too.
Excellent alternative to pricey, hard-to-find, vintage Mostortions. Flexible EQ. Great headroom. Silky low-gain sounds.
None.
$199
Wampler Mofetta
wamplerpedals.com
Wampler’s new Mofetta is a riff on Ibanez’s MT10 Mostortion, a long-ago discontinued pedal that’s now an in-demand cult classic. If you look at online listings for the MT10, you’ll see that asking prices have climbed up to $1k in extreme cases.
It would have been easy for Wampler to simply make a Mostortion clone and call it a day, but they added some unique twists to the Mofetta pedal. While the original Mostortion had a MOSFET-based op amp, it actually used clipping diodes to create its overdrive. The Mofetta is a fairly accurate replica and includes that circuitry, but also has a toggle switch for texture, which lets you choose between the original-style diode-based clipping in the down position and multi-cascaded MOSFET gain stages in the up position.
Luscious Low Gain and Meaty Mid-Gain
The Mofetta’s control panel is very straightforward and conventional with knobs for bass, mids, treble, level, and gain. The original Mostortion was revered for its low-gain tone and is now popular among Nashville session guitarists. Wampler’s tribute captures that edge-of-breakup vibe perfectly. I enjoyed using the pedal with the gain on the lower side, around 9 o’clock, where I heard and felt slight compression that gave single notes a smooth and silky feel. I particularly enjoyed the tone-thickening the Mofetta lent to my Ernie Ball Music Man Axis Sport’s split-coil sound as I played pop melodies and rootsy, triadic rhythm guitar figures. The Mofetta has expansive headroom, and as a result there’s a lot of space in which you can find really bold, cutting tones without muddying the waters too much. Even turning the gain all the way off yields a pleasing volume bump that would work well in a clean boost setting.
There’s a lot of space in which you can find really bold, cutting tones without muddying the waters too much.
Switching the texture switch up engages the MOSFET section, introducing cascading gain stages that elevate the heat and add flavor the original Mostortion didn’t really offer. Classic rock and early metal are readily available via the MOSFET setting. If you need to stretch out to modern metal sounds, the Mofetta probably isn’t the pedal for you. Again, the original Mostortion was, first and foremost, a low-to-mid-gain affair, so unless you’re using it as a boost with a high-gain amp, the Mofetta is not really a vehicle for extreme sounds.
One of the Mofetta’s real treats is its responsiveness. Even at higher gain settings the Mofetta is very touch sensitive. You can tap into a wide range of dynamic shading just by varying the strength of your pick attack. I enjoyed playing fast, ascending scalar passages, picking with a medium attack then really slamming it hard when I hit a high climactic note, to get the guitar to really scream.
The Verdict
Wampler is a reliably great builder who creates pedals with a purpose. I own two of his pedals, the Dual Fusion and the Pinnacle, and both are really exceptional units. The Mofetta captures the essence of the Mostortion and makes it available at an accessible price. But even if you’ve never heard or played an original Mostortion, you’ll appreciate the truly versatile EQ, touch sensitivity, and the bonus texture switch, which expands the Mofetta’s range into more aggressive spaces. The wealth of dirt boxes on the market today can make a player jaded. But Wampler pushed into a relatively unique, satisfying, and interesting place with the Mofetta.
Although inspired by the classic Fuzz Face, this stomp brings more to the hair-growth game with wide-ranging bias and low-cut controls.
One-ups the Fuzz Face in tonal versatility and pure, sustained filth, with the ability to preserve most of the natural sonic thumbprint of your guitar or take your tone to lower, delightfully nasty places.
Pushing the bias hard can create compromising note decay. Difficult to control at extreme settings.
$144
Catalinbread StarCrash
catalinbread.com
Filthy, saturated fuzz is a glorious thing, whether it’s the writ-large solos of Big Brother and the Holding Company’s live “Ball and Chain,” the soaring feedback and pure crush of Jimi Hendrix’s “Foxy Lady,” or the sandblasted rhythm textures of Queens of the Stone Age’s “Paper Machete.” It’s also a Wayback Machine. Step on a fuzz pedal and your tone is transported to the ’60s or early ’70s, which, when it comes to classic guitar sounds, is not a bad place to be.
Catalinbread’s StarCrash is from their new ’70s collection, so the company is laying its Six Million Dollar Man trading cards on the table—upping the ante on traditional fuzz with more controls and, according to the company’s website, a little more volume than the average fuzz pedal, while still staying in the traditional Fuzz Face lane.
The Howler’s Viscera
Arbiter Electronics made the first Fuzz Face in 1966. The StarCrash is inspired by that 2-transistor pedal, but benefits from evolution, as did almost all fuzz pedals in the ’70s, when the standard shifted from germanium to silicon circuitry to improve the consistency of the effect’s performance. The downside is that germanium is gnarlier to some ears, and silicon transistors don’t respond as well to adjustments made via a guitar’s volume control.
While Fuzz Faces have only two knobs, volume and fuzz, the silicon StarCrash has three: volume, bias, and low-cut. Catalinbread’s website explains: “We got rid of that goofy fuzz knob. We know that 95 percent of all players run it dimed, and the remaining 5 percent use their guitar’s volume knob to rein it in.”
I suspect there are plenty of players who, like me, do adjust the fuzz control on their pedals, but the most important thing is that the core fuzz sound here is excellent—bristly and snarling, with a far girthier tone than my reissue Fuzz Face. It’s also, with the bias and low-cut controls, far more flexible. The low-cut control allows you to range from a traditional, comparatively thinner Fuzz Face sound (past noon and further) to the StarCrash’s authentic, beefier voice (noon and lower). Essentially, it cuts bass frequencies from 40 Hz to 500 Hz, resulting in an aural menu that runs from lush and lowdown to buzzy and slicing. And the bias control is a direct route to the spitty, fragmented, so-called Velcro-sound that’s become a staple of the stoner-rock/Jack White school of tone. The company calls this dial a “dying battery simulator,” and it starves the second transistor to achieve that effect.
Sweet Song of the Tribbles
Playing with the StarCrash is a lot of fun. I ran it through a pair of Carr amps in stereo, adding some delay and reverb to mood, and used a variety of single-coil- and humbucker-outfitted guitars. While both pickup types interacted well with the pedal, the humbuckers were most pleasing to my ears with the bias cranked to about 2 o’clock or higher, since the ’buckers higher output allowed me to let notes sustain longer before sputtering out. Keeping the low-cut filter at 9 o’clock or lower also helped sustain and depth in the Velcro-fuzz zone, while letting more of the instruments’ natural voices come through, of course.
With the low-cut filter turned up full and the bias at 10 o’clock, I got the StarCrash to be the perfect doppelganger of my Hendrix reissue Fuzz Face. But that’s such a small part of the pedal’s overall tone profile. It was more fun to roll off just a bit of bass and set the bias knob to about 2 or 3 o’clock. Around these settings, the sound is huge and grinding, and yet barre chords hold their character while playing rhythm, and single-note runs, especially on the low strings, are a filthy delight, with just the right schmear of buttery sustain plus a hint of decay lurking behind every note. It’s such a ripe tone—the sonic equivalent of a delicious, stinky cheese—that I could hang with it all day.
Regarding Catalinbread’s claims about the volume control? Yes, it gets very loud without losing the essence of the notes or chords you’re playing, or the character of the fuzz, which is a distinct advantage when you’re in a band and need to stand out. And it’s a tad louder than my Fuzz Face but doesn’t really bark up to the level of most Tone Bender or Buzzaround clones I’ve heard. In my experience, these germanium-chipped critters of similar vintage can practically slam you through the wall when their volume levels are cranked.
The Verdict
Catalinbread’s StarCrash—with its sturdy enclosure, smooth on/off switch and easy-to-manipulate dials—can compete with any Fuzz Face variant in both price and performance, scoring high points on the latter count. The bias and low-cut dials provide access to a wider-than-usual variety of fuzz tones, and are especially delightful for long, playful solos dappled with gristle, flutter, and sustain. Kudos to Catalinbread for making this pedal not just a reflection of the past, but an improvement on it.
Catalinbread Starcrash 70 Fuzz Pedal - Starcrash 70 Collection
StarCrash 70 Fuzz PedalIntrepid knob-tweakers can blend between ring mod and frequency shifting and shoot for the stars.
Unique, bold, and daring sounds great for guitarists and producers. For how complex it is, it’s easy to find your way around.
Players who don’t have the time to invest might find the scope of this pedal intimidating.
$349
Red Panda Radius
redpandalab.com
The release of a newRed Panda pedal is something to be celebrated. Each of the company’s devices lets us crack into our signal chains and tweak its inner properties in unique, forward-thinking ways, encouraging us to be daring, create something new, and think about sound differently. In essence, they take us to the sonic frontier, where the most intrepid among us seek thrills.
Last January, I got my first glimpse of the Radius at NAMM and knew that Red Panda mastermind Curt Malouin had, once again, concocted something fresh. The pedal offers ring modulation and frequency shifting with pitch tracking and an LFO, and I heard classic ring-mod tones as the jumping off point for oodles of bold sounds generated by envelope and waveform-controlled modulation and interaction. I had to get my hands on one.
Enjoy the Process
I’ve heard some musicians talk about how the functionality of Red Panda’s pedals are deep to a point that they can be hard to follow. If that’s the case, it’s by design, simply because each Red Panda device opens access to an untrodden path. As such, it can feel heady to get into the details of the Radius, which blends between ring modulation and frequency shifting, offering control of the balance and shift ratios of the upper and lower sidebands to create effects including phasing, tremolo, and far less-natural sounds.
As complex as that all might seem, Red Panda’s pedals always make it easy to strip the controls down to their most essential form. The firmest ground for a guitarist to stand with the Radius is a simple ring-mod sound. To get that, I selected the ring mod function, turned off the modulation section by zeroing the rate and amount knobs, kept the shift switch off and the range switch on its lowest setting. With the mix at noon and the frequency knob cranked, I found my sound.
From there, by lowering the frequency range, the Radius will yield percussive tremolo tones, and the track knob helped me dial that in before opening up a host of phaser sounds below noon. By going the other direction and kicking the rate switch into its higher setting, a world of ring-mod tweaking opens up. There are some uniquely warped effects in these higher settings that include dial-up modem sounds and lo-fi dial tones. Exploring the ring mod/frequency shift knob widens the possibilities further to high-pitched, filtered white noise and glitchy digital artifacts at its extremes.
There are wild, active sounds within each knob movement on the Radius, and the modulation section naturally brings those to life in more ways than a simple knob tweak ever could, delivering four LFO waveforms, a step modulator, two x-mod waveforms, and an envelope follower. It’s within these settings that I found rayguns, sirens, Shepard tones, and futuristic sounds that were even harder to describe.
It’s easy to imagine the Radius at the forefront of sonic experiments, where it would be right at home. But this pedal could easily be a studio device when applied in low doses to give a track something special that pops. The possible applications go way beyond guitars.
The Verdict
The Radius isn’t easy to plug and play, but it’s also not hard to use if you keep an open mind. That’s necessary, too: The Radius is not for guitar players who prefer to stay grounded; this pedal is for sonic-stargazers and producers.
I enjoyed pairing the Radius with various guitar instruments—12-string, baritone, bass—and it kept getting me more and more excited about sonic experimentation. That feeling is a big part of what’s special about this pedal. It’s so open-ended and controllable, continuing to reveal more of its capabilities with use. Once you feel like you’ve gotten something down, there are often more sounds to explore, whether that’s putting a new instrument or pedal next to it or exploring the Radius’ stereo, MIDI, or expression-pedal functionality. Like many great instruments, it only takes a few minutes to get started, but it could keep you exploring for years.