Full Disclosure: I am not a paid blogger, but TrueFire does exchange access to their lessons to me for a review per month.
Ah, Pentatonics: Guitar DNA is an apt title, especially on this subject of the series. Pentatonics are easy to learn, play, and visualize on guitar and make an excellent starting point to learning improvisation for many styles of music. David Walliman is an excellent fusion player and lines up some absolutely essential concepts, getting into some advanced territory, including connecting chromatic material between the notes in the “boxes”. Even though there are some tasty licks all tabbed out, this is mostly presenting concepts, which I look at as a big plus, and overall I would recommend this both to students learning to break out of the one or two standard boxes of pentatonics, but for intermediate t advanced folks looking to apply ideas in new ways…
But I have one major complaint. (Warning: big music geek/teacher rant ahead. It’s OK to skip down a paragraph. You have been warned.) Back when I reviewed Jeff Sheetz’s Street Theory for Guitarists, I gave him big praise for getting into the seven fundamental modes without getting into what I call “guitarists bad modal theory”, which can be especially prevalent in the way many younger jazzers teach. It causes some supreme confusion when later getting into simple concepts like jazz ii-V-Is. (“Dorian to mixolydian to…” NO! It’s a simple MAJOR SCALE chord progression.) The seven fundamental modes aren’t just the same scale with a different root, it still also has to function within the harmonic context. Teaching scales as “modes” based on what note is under your first or second finger on the sixth string of the grid is a confusing no-no both for teaching scale grids, and for teaching modal theory. It goes double for when you show which three Pentatonic grids fit into the three major and minor modes (You are not playing three separate major “modes” of pentatonics within the Ionian mode. You are fleshing out the major scale with three seperate Pentatonic scales. Hint: teach this by scale degree, not by naming modes completely out of context.) Seriously, I know there are some of you who will disagree, but this is Bad. This is B-aaayad music theory. What I find really bad is that Mr. Walliman knows modes well enough that when he does get around to jamming over them he’s using progressions that work for the correct modes (i.e. the correct context at that point) that it’s baffling he’s using out of context modes in place of naming grids or scale degrees.
Other than my major pet peeve about modal theory… if you can avoid the confusion related to that, there is a wealth of useful material here.