Music Theory lost in the Jeff Beck Thread

[malice]

nough said :D

malice

[Cosmic Pig]

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Some guys go all scale flavor and some all tone flavor... some go in the middle. Tone is in the fingers. Music is tone and scale. Beck and Gibbons go for the tones, Vai and Satriani go for the scale.

Guys like Trower and Gilmore are somewhere in the middle, leaning towards scale. I figure personal nirvava lies somewhere near the middle leaning towards tone.

I dig this thread, it's always good to stop and think about one's personal focus.

But really how inna fuck did Neil get in this thread? He sucks 20 minutes at a pop.

Cos.

[Jasco]

By the way, anyone who digs Jeff Beck would probably like this guy too:

http://www.philbrownguitar.com/

http://www.myspace.com/philbrownguitar

[leegunter]

Jeff Beck plays like he's mad at the guitar and is going to beat on the thing until it submits.

And anyone who doesn't know his early stuff, definitely check it out. The Rod Stewart group is fabulous. And the one with the orange on the front has some absolutely vicious playing!

Yeah- Beck is God. That shouldn't come as news to anyone!:grin:

With the possible exception of, say, God.

[otek]

Some guys go all scale flavor and some all tone flavor... some go in the middle. Tone is in the fingers. Music is tone and scale. Beck and Gibbons go for the tones, Vai and Satriani go for the scale.

Guys like Trower and Gilmore are somewhere in the middle, leaning towards scale. I figure personal nirvava lies somewhere near the middle leaning towards tone.


Really? You mean that's all there is to it? :Surprised:

Whoa.

Better turn off my computer and go rearrange my record collection. Screw alphabetic. I now envision a center line with the "scale" music in ascending order one way and the "tone" music going the other way. The more tone, the further to the right, and vice versa.

I wish all things in life were this easy.

Thanks Cos!


otek

[Dubnick]

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Some guys go all scale flavor and some all tone flavor... some go in the middle. Tone is in the fingers. Music is tone and scale. Beck and Gibbons go for the tones, Vai and Satriani go for the scale.

Guys like Trower and Gilmore are somewhere in the middle, leaning towards scale. I figure personal nirvava lies somewhere near the middle leaning towards tone.

I dig this thread, it's always good to stop and think about one's personal focus.

But really how inna fuck did Neil get in this thread? He sucks 20 minutes at a pop.

Cos.Uh, wow, this is clearly said with the guitar-player-blinders on. Reducing music to "scales" and "tone" is a bit like saying that the most important elements on a car are the wheels and the color. How about tension and release, development of theme and variation, symmetry and asymmetry and the narrative nature of linear arts like music? I guess the musicians and composers who have been studying and developing these concepts for hundreds and hundreds of years were just wasting thier time, huh? They should know it's all about the scales and tones dude! Seriously, great guitar players of all stripes (including, yes, Neil Young), great musicians, great composers and great songwriters all share a common understanding of the importance the concepts I listed above. Focusing on tone and scales alone would only lead to one becoming the best guitar player to never leave thier bedroom.

[Cosmic Pig]

Glad to help Otek.

Uh, wow, this is clearly said with the guitar-player-blinders on. Reducing music to "scales" and "tone" is a bit like saying that the most important elements on a car are the wheels and the color. How about tension and release, development of theme and variation, symmetry and asymmetry and the narrative nature of linear arts like music?

Haha. You just described scale and tone. Maybe my definition was too broad for you over-educated types who use their music degrees like a penile implant to get it up. The type often seen at jams frantically squeezing their nuts to create tension and release while the musicians wonder what the fuck you're trying to say.

Haha. Anyways. Tension and release can be found in scales, and tones. The rest of that stuff, theme and variation etc. also falls under one or the other.

Cos.

[otek]

Glad to help Otek.

I just confirmed artful sarcasm is dead in Italy, I hope it's still breathing in Canada. :D


otek

[HOOK]

(snip)...over-educated types...(snip)... while the musicians wonder

did you just render the whole music education thingie useless??

Musician= not educated?

Does this include high school or just university studies?


Is your name Rotten by any chance??




HOOK

[Cosmic Pig]

Haha... lessee... yup, yup, yup, yup, and nope.

But really, what doesn't fall under scale and tone? As defined by me. The point being most players fall one direction or the other. Is there a third?

Cos.

[otek]

But really, what doesn't fall under scale and tone?


Music doesn't "fall under" either; I don't believe it's possible to define music like that.


otek

[HOOK]

Haha... lessee... yup, yup, yup, yup, and nope.

But really, what doesn't fall under scale and tone? As defined by me. The point being most players fall one direction or the other. Is there a third?

Cos.

ok let ´s see...as defined by me direction is 3 dimentional(at least)...but you uses only one....I take it you dont have any kind of education? Do you play punk music by any chanse?

Funny; music is (I think) the only artform/craft there is where it is considered harmful for the artform/craft to know/learn something about the artform/craft...:Roll eyes:



HOOK

[Cosmic Pig]

Music doesn't "fall under" either; I don't believe it's possible to define music like that.

Maybe not music per se so much, but I think you can with individual instruments. There's two ways to say something, with notes or with tone. All players use a combination, but lots swing one way or the other. Sure there are worlds in each, but all players strive for their definition of the perfect combination of those two basics.

Cos.

[Cosmic Pig]

ok let ´s see...as defined by me direction is 3 dimentional(at least)...but you uses only one....I take it you dont have any kind of education? Do you play punk music by any chanse?

Funny; music is (I think) the only artform/craft there is where it is considered harmful for the artform/craft to know/learn something about the artform/craft...:Roll eyes:



HOOK

Well sheeit lets not go down that road again. I think the root of the debate over education lies in tone versus scale. I was just shooting at Dubnik with the over-educated crack, but education is only half of music. Or 3/4 or 1/4, depending on where you are in the tone/scale swing.

Cos.

[otek]

Maybe not music per se so much, but I think you can with individual instruments.

That may be true if you're a dentist, but a musician? I seriously don't believe that.

I don't see the guitar as being any different from a saxophone, or a piano, or a drum kit. They're all tools you use to express yourself and let the music speak through you. The idea that just because it is a guitar, there is a dedicated subset of musical standards that apply to that instrument alone - I think that's nonsense. That is a myth (and a dangerous mode of thinking) that's been perpetuated among guitar players in particular, for some strange reason. It reduces music to a sports event, where everything can be explained through stats and numbers.

Among which other instrumentalists do you see all those inane discussions of "speed vs. emotion"? Among saxophonists? Hardly. Coltrane and Parker played faster than any guitar player I am aware of, but were they ever accused of being "wankers"? Not really, at least I haven't seen it.

This whole division of music into "tone" (meaning, presumably, the timbre produced by the musician, as a result of the tonal characteristic of the instrument and the player's skill and style), and "scale" (presumably referring to the actual note choices, or worse, the tempo at which the notes are played) is meaningless because it implies that there is some kind of inverse proportionality or even exclusiveness between the two terms.

Passionate, heartfelt music is not dependent on those petty technicalities and definitions. I don't think it's possible, or even desirable, to quantify music like that.


otek

[Dubnick]

Well sheeit lets not go down that road again. I think the root of the debate over education lies in tone versus scale. I was just shooting at Dubnik with the over-educated crack, but education is only half of music. Or 3/4 or 1/4, depending on where you are in the tone/scale swing.

Cos.
I really don't mean this sarcastically at all, so I hope you don't take it that way but, is English not your first language? The reason I ask is that it occurs to me that perhaps this is more a matter of something getting lost in translation than anything else. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt here before responding. Could you define the terms "scale" and "tone" as you understand them? Thanks.

[Cosmic Pig]

That may be true if you're a dentist, but a musician? I seriously don't believe that.

I don't see the guitar as being any different from a saxophone, or a piano, or a drum kit. They're all tools you use to express yourself and let the music speak through you. The idea that just because it is a guitar, there is a dedicated subset of musical standards that apply to that instrument alone - I think that's nonsense. That is a myth (and a dangerous mode of thinking) that's been perpetuated among guitar players in particular, for some strange reason. It reduces music to a sports event, where everything can be explained through stats and numbers.

Among which other instrumentalists do you see all those inane discussions of "speed vs. emotion"? Among saxophonists? Hardly. Coltrane and Parker played faster than any guitar player I am aware of, but were they ever accused of being "wankers"? Not really, at least I haven't seen it.

This whole division of music into "tone" (meaning, presumably, the timbre produced by the musician, as a result of the tonal characteristic of the instrument and the player's skill and style), and "scale" (presumably referring to the actual note choices, or worse, the tempo at which the notes are played) is meaningless because it implies that there is some kind of inverse proportionality or even exclusiveness between the two terms.

Passionate, heartfelt music is not dependent on those petty technicalities and definitions. I don't think it's possible, or even desirable, to quantify music like that.


otek

I agree with you on the last paragraph, but I sorta disagree on the rest of it. I think you can break it down some, and I think the reason guitar is usually the center of it is due to the wider range of tones available.... or possibly its just because there's one in every band these days. Not being a sax player I don't know the range of possible tones.

A scale choice will give you feel. Like starting a run up the neck slow, then staggering it into 16th notes or whatever up to the held crescendo. Thats all scale and meter choices.

A tone choice will give you feel. Hard picking every fourth note and soft on the other three, then raking all the strings with the crescendo emerging from the fray... thats tone from the picking. Combine that with whatever amp tone you're using, feedback from the amp, or myriad other tone choices.

Put em all together and you get a bigass felt riff.

Take blues versus shred. On the extreme ends one is sterile and the other is fumbled crap. The bad shredder is missing the tone, the nuance. The bad blues player thinks its all about the feel and craps out the riff trying to squeeze out some tones.

Billy Gibbons can do awesome stuff in the four note blues box that Vai could never do, and Vai could make a scale sing like Billy never could. Both are getting feel from the opposite ends of the same stick.

I figger.

Cos.

[Cosmic Pig]

To keep babbling.... take the riff you did on the Team Quezirider tune. The scale or riff you used gave part of the feel, and the choice of the clean verby tremolo sound was the tone choice that gave the rest of the feel. When you put those two together it kicked ass and fit perfectly.

Cos.

[Dubnick]

Haha. You just described scale and tone. I did? Perhaps you could elaborate?
Maybe my definition was too broad for you over-educated types who use their music degrees like a penile implant to get it up. The type often seen at jams frantically squeezing their nuts to create tension and release while the musicians wonder what the fuck you're trying to say. Wow, you really nailed me Kojak. Ouch - I am really burned. Would a "Oh no he di-in't!" with the appropriate neck movement be in order? Your wit astounds me sir.
Haha. Anyways. Tension and release can be found in scales, and tones. The rest of that stuff, theme and variation etc. also falls under one or the other. While note choice from a scale, whether in the context of a melodic passage or chord choice, is certainly one of many tools used in the service of expressing tension and release and creating compelling themes and variations in music, a scale in and of itself can't be equated directly with concepts like tension and release or theme and variation. A tool in the realization of those concepts? Sure. The same as or entirely encompassing those concepts? Sorry bud, no sale. Tone and stylistic choices certainly help embed musical choices with more emotion and personality, but again, it's not the same thing as the concepts of tension and release or theme and variation, and I think it can be argued rather successfully that music as a whole is bigger than the tools used in the service of creating music, if that makes any sense. If you had said phrasing, note choice, timing and soul, for lack of a better term, were what it's all about, I think I could be on board with what your saying, and perhaps that's what you mean to say, but I'm not sure. As far as the "dis" goes - I hope it did for you whatever you needed it to, cause I'm not sure it goes very far in furthering or clarifying your argument. Good luck man - for the record, I don't doubt your probably a great guitarist in the context you are comfortable in.

[otek]

Both are getting feel from the opposite ends of the same stick.

See, this is what I am not getting from your reasoning.

Why are there "opposites" involved in guitar playing specifically, that don't seem to apply to any other instruments in your line of thinking?

Can a note even exist without belonging to a greater melodic context, whether in the framework of a composition/song or an improvisation? Isn't a note always part of what you call "scale", because it belongs in a musical context? Likewise, can it exist without tone? Don't all notes, whether played inside a chord, or as part of a scalar or figurative motion, intrinsically have "tone", regardless of tempo or context?

I think placing Vai or Gibbons on some kind of a linear scale with "tone" on one extreme and "scale" on the other, aside from being shock-full of impossible contradictions, is reducing both of them to abject stereotypes, and you don't have to listen to many of their respective songs to realize the theory collapses very quickly.


otek

[Cosmic Pig]

Wow, you really nailed me Kojak. Ouch - I am really burned. Would a "Oh no he di-in't!" with the appropriate neck movement be in order? Your wit astounds me sir.

Well you started it. As much fun as it is trading barbs my repartee has departee... as you can see. So I give up.

Why are there "opposites" involved in guitar playing specifically, that don't seem to apply to any other instruments in your line of thinking?

Naw I think it applies to most instruments, but as mentioned earlier guitar has more tonal options than most. Possibly. You don't see many pedal boards with sax players.

Can a note even exist without belonging to a greater melodic context, whether in the framework of a composition/song or an improvisation? Isn't a note always part of what you call "scale", because it belongs in a musical context? Likewise, can it exist without tone? Don't all notes, whether played inside a chord, or as part of a scalar or figurative motion, intrinsically have "tone", regardless of tempo or context?

Sure a note is a tone but the tone of the note has many variations. Sound of the amp, choice of distortions etc. and as mentioned ealier.... did you guys read what I said?... the myriad ways to pick the note, different vibratos etc.

I think placing Vai or Gibbons on some kind of a linear scale with "tone" on one extreme and "scale" on the other, aside from being shock-full of impossible contradictions, is reducing both of them to abject stereotypes, and you don't have to listen to many of their respective songs to realize the theory collapses very quickly.

True. All I'm saying is one guy tends towards scale flavor and the other tone. I think a lot of players miss out on one or the other, the most common one being tone because its not easily taught.

On a side note; I'm not great with the scales so I would consider myself towards the tone end. I thought for a few years I was short on scale so thats where I needed work, but I was wrong. What I needed was to explore my strength. Thats where my personal best lies. I get more feel out of the 4 note blues box using tone than I get out of the phrygian mode. When I start feeling like I have nothing to say I start playing faster and in modes, so I force myself back to the basics of scale, the 4 note box, to remind myself I'm here to say something not show dexterity.

Cos.

[HOOK]

.... guitar has more tonal options than most. Possibly. You don't see many pedal boards with sax players.

Is this proof that guitar have more tonal options or that guitar have fewer tonal options and thus need all those pedals?? :Razz:



HOOK

[eagan]

Meanwhile, the thought still hangs there in the air; why is it that you usually don't get these kinds of essentially pointless debates except when guitar players come up in conversation?

You really want silly?

Stop in and nose around the forum on Eric Johnson's website and watch what happens any time people zero in on just the subject of "tone". Oy.


JLE

[HOOK]

.... the same reason as why the guitar players choose to play guitar in the first place; They are a bunch of egocentric, loudmouths with an urge to be at the front edge of the stage, that realy wanted to be the singer but couldn´t sing in key so they went for second best and found out that they could out volume the singer if they bought big enough amps and impress some blond girls if they learnt some chops or picked up some lines about " tone" or "vibe" or learned to play fast enough.....

Thats why, Eagan.


This ofcourse, as you all know, goes double for oTek! :Twisted:




:Wink: :Razz: :Wink: :Razz: :Wink: :Razz: :Wink: :Razz: :Wink: :Razz: :Razz: (just in case someone didn´t got it):Razz: :Razz: :Razz:



HOOK

[HOOK]

BTW OnT: Beck is good! :grin:

Its all in yer fingers, man!!!






HOOK

[otek]

Meanwhile, the thought still hangs there in the air; why is it that you usually don't get these kinds of essentially pointless debates except when guitar players come up in conversation?

I have no idea.

Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place.

I really, really cannot think of guitar playing, or any kind of musical endeavor in such formulaic ways. End of story. It cries out against everything I know about music.


otek

[Cosmic Pig]

I agree these debates are usually pointless. Myself personally I like to break things down. It helps me analyze Where to look sometimes.

Isn't music education mostly breaking down music to its elements?

If I'm producing a tune I use mostly instinct, but when something bugs me I can't peg I look at it using what I consider to be the primary elements of art; inspiration, craft, and emotion.

I won't get into all the details of it, but all art has strength and weakness' in one of those three, whether its a painting, tune, or TV commercial.

Tone is under emotion and scale is under craft... but tone can be under craft too, if the execution of tone is weak.

Anyways. Try it before you laugh at it. Usually a problem pops out at you as obvious, but when its not obvious breaking it down often helps me pinpoint the problem.

Cos.

[HOOK]

.... but the subject is too beat.

:Roll eyes:


care to elaborate??

Why is it so frightening to you that people want to explore their passion with the guidance of someone who have a little bit of more knowledge than themselves, that you feel the need to ridicule the educational system as a whole?

Please tell me something else but the old beat stuff like "school kills feeling" yadayada

Educate me!!

BTW why are you here, on this forum, learning stuff anyway?

HOOK

[Cosmic Pig]

:Roll eyes:


care to elaborate??

Why is it so frightening to you that people want to explore their passion with the guidance of someone who have a little bit of more knowledge than themselves, that you feel the need to ridicule the educational system as a whole?

Please tell me something else but the old beat stuff like "school kills feeling" yadayada

Educate me!!

BTW why are you here, on this forum, learning stuff anyway?

HOOK

Naw you read it wrong Hook. I meant the topic has been done to death. The debate over musical education breaks down to; yes reading and understanding theory is good for your playing, no it won't make you a better player.

That statement seems contradictory, but thats because it all depends on what type of player you strive to be. Education won't help you wring emotion out of the basic blues scale: tone player. Education is needed to get out of the basic blues scale: scale player.

Most players wind up somewhere in the middle.

Cos.

[HOOK]

Thank you. :)





HOOK

[Dubnick]

Naw you read it wrong Hook. I meant the topic has been done to death. The debate over musical education breaks down to; yes reading and understanding theory is good for your playing, no it won't make you a better player.

That statement seems contradictory, but thats because it all depends on what type of player you strive to be. Education won't help you wring emotion out of the basic blues scale: tone player. Education is needed to get out of the basic blues scale: scale player.

Most players wind up somewhere in the middle.

Cos.Dude, you're funny.

[Cosmic Pig]

Dude, you're funny.

Dude you're cryptic. Spit it out man.

Cos.

[malice]

Cool,

I expected like 6 pages since I was away, but, hey, I can't say I cn complain with the discussion so far.

:D

but please, go on :D

malice

[Cosmic Pig]

Ya this one seems to be a slow brew.

Well fuck it....

Advanced music education is a waste of time. There are much better uses of your time in the quest to become a musician.

Advanced music education won't open your ears to the practical application of playing. Just cuz you understand it doesn't mean you can play it.

On guitar you need the 5 modes, some basic scales and chords and you're good to go. Beyond that education is merely handy and not nearly as valuable as gigging steady.

There I said it. Now having kicked the thread in the nuts I'll run away.

Cos.

[Slipperman]

The "Joy of playing" and the "Joy of listening" can sometimes seem diametrically opposed pursuits.

Each artist has his "mantle of artistic responsibility to himself".

Some choose it FIRST AND FOREMOST with persistancy.

Some choose it to EXCLUSION OF ALL ELSE.

I'm not saying it's wrong or right. Just that it IS.

The "Mantle of listenership" can be an equally daunting item to adopt/append/amend.

Pick your coat.

And don't be afraid to examine and redefine it if you'd like.

Makes the world go round.

XOXOXO

Slippy

[HOOK]

Just cuz you understand it doesn't mean you can play it.

Just cuz you can play it doesn't mean you understand it.

You need both to be a good player.

Understanding is the key to be able to learn if what you learn shall be more than just rattling off a bunch of facts or imitating a skill/phrase/song/watever..
Understanding is the key to the ability of using these facts/skills in some new combination apropriate for the situation at hand.
some people does this without knowing they do it, without education or even practice, but the wast majority of us need some kind of guidance.


Yes, there are exceptions...at both end of the scale.

I second oTeks recomendation of "Amused to death"!!!

HOOK

[G cubed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ej3BdMpgZw

[otek]

the 4 note blues box

On guitar you need the 5 modes

Advanced music education is a waste of time


Anyone else spot a theme here? :Wink:


otek

[Dubnick]

Anyone else spot a theme here? :Wink:


otek
Hahahah - that's why I figure, why bother? Just enjoy the entertainment value.

[Cosmic Pig]

Hahahah - that's why I figure, why bother? Just enjoy the entertainment value.

Well Jeez at least I put a little effort into it.

Buncha jamtarts.

Cos.

[Cosmic Pig]

Haha Dubnick, I clicked on your link and low and behold you teach theory.

So educate me. I have an open mind. I suspect by your snobbery you don't. I understand though, most people who spend a lot of time learning something get pretty defensive at the suggestion they wasted their time.

Now tell me why learning theory will make me a better guitar player. To keep you on track, we're talking about playing guitar. Not writing music or playing piano, just playing guitar.

Kay go.

Cos.

[bbkong]

Great thread.

It's not gay at all.

[otek]

Now tell me why learning theory will make me a better guitar player. To keep you on track, we're talking about playing guitar. Not writing music or playing piano, just playing guitar.


I know this question was not meant for me, but I'll tell you my view on it just the same.

I think learning theory can make you a better musician, whether that musician happens to play guitar or not. It certainly won't make you a worse one. But it's not a necessity in and of itself. There are plenty of brilliant players who couldn't tell you what an E chord is. There are even styles of music where the standard "western" terminology of music theory makes little or no sense. This is because music theory is supposed to be a language used between musicians to organize, systematize and communicate musical ideas. It's not necessary for the listener to know theory in order to appreciate the music, regardless of the style and complexity. But it's usually very helpful if you are trying to get ideas across to other people when writing, arranging or recording.

Theory also best serves the music if it's internalized and reduced to an almost (but not quite) subconscious process. Any good musician or composer will tell you they probably don't think much about theory when they play or compose.

If playing the guitar becomes a purely muscular event, separate from musical activity as a whole, very little theory is needed to make it work. It's kind of like masturbation that way, and god knows there are enough guitar players like that - at ALL technical levels.

You see, making music to me is not about a certain skill set you acquire, certain moves you make and certain licks you learn by route so you can flash off at the local bar. Making music is beyond "scale" or "note", beyond theoretical concepts, and beyond categorization. And that goes for everyone. Why should guitar playing be different?


Cheers,

otek

[vocalnick]

Now tell me why learning theory will make me a better guitar player. To keep you on track, we're talking about playing guitar. Not writing music or playing piano, just playing guitar.

"How will learning about music help me to be better at playing a musical instrument?"

Yeah, that's a tough one.

EDIT: While I was typing, Otek managed to say it a lot more eloquently, and without the sarcasm :)

[dikledoux]

Now tell me why learning theory will make me a better guitar player. To keep you on track, we're talking about playing guitar. Not writing music or playing piano, just playing guitar.
I get it. You're pulling my leg.






Wait. That's not my leg! Eeeeeuuuuuwwwww!


dik

[Cosmic Pig]

I know this question was not meant for me, but I'll tell you my view on it just the same.

I think learning theory can make you a better musician, whether that musician happens to play guitar or not. It certainly won't make you a worse one. But it's not a necessity in and of itself. There are plenty of brilliant players who couldn't tell you what an E chord is. There are even styles of music where the standard "western" terminology of music theory makes little or no sense. This is because music theory is supposed to be a language used between musicians to organize, systematize and communicate musical ideas. It's not necessary for the listener to know theory in order to appreciate the music, regardless of the style and complexity. But it's usually very helpful if you are trying to get ideas across to other people when writing, arranging or recording.

Theory also best serves the music if it's internalized and reduced to an almost (but not quite) subconscious process. Any good musician or composer will tell you they probably don't think much about theory when they play or compose.

If playing the guitar becomes a purely muscular event, separate from musical activity as a whole, very little theory is needed to make it work. It's kind of like masturbation that way, and god knows there are enough guitar players like that - at ALL technical levels.

You see, making music to me is not about a certain skill set you acquire, certain moves you make and certain licks you learn by route so you can flash off at the local bar. Making music is beyond "scale" or "note", beyond theoretical concepts, and beyond categorization. And that goes for everyone. Why should guitar playing be different?


Cheers,

otek

I agree.

So why do I get sneered at for talking about tone as a function of music that can be separated from scale?

Cos.

[dwoz]

I agree.

So why do I get sneered at for talking about tone as a function of music that can be separated from scale?

Cos.


because it can't be. Its a totally false dichotomy.


But then again, this is all a purely semantical bit of wankery...because when you say "Tone" you don't really mean "Tone". You mean something else. You mean something like speed and phrasing. When you say "scale" you don't mean "scale" at all...you mean different speed and phrasing.

I can't even BEGIN to say what an advantage my music education has been in my playing. I can walk into ANY situation and simply start playing, from the countoff, just by glancing over at the keyboardist's hands, the guitarist's hands, the drummer's hands... I don't need to know the tune, I can just play.

Western music is all built around very well-trodden patterns of tension/release, based on very logical and discernable 'rules'.

Empirical rules. The rules came from the practice of music, rather than the other way around. You can't build a building and then engineer it later, but you CAN with music. And when you spend some time delving into the structures that we build in music, you start to see the same patterns over and over again. Like fractals...there are macro patterns and micro patterns, and they recursively repeat.


I have to say that knowing theory does more for your playing than anything else. Imagine, if you will, that music wasn't just a pleasing sort of diversion...a sonic panacea...but imagine instead that it was actually a language, that was useful for communication.

What a concept! well...can you imagine communicating without any understanding of the language, compared to communicating with understanding of the language?

A musician who hasn't studied the language (and by that I mean, someone who has studied the SOUNDS...knowing all the note names and stuff is fun and interesting, but it is NOT what I'm talking about!!!!!) can only produce naive and occasionally accidentally amusing work...but someone who has studied can consistently SPEAK.

and "speaking" means knowing when to use "tone" and when to use "scale" and when to use "skroink" and when to use "smoov" and when to use ".........................................."


dwoz

[otek]

I agree.

So why do I get sneered at for talking about tone as a function of music that can be separated from scale?

You must not have read my post very carefully.

I resent the idea that you can take one instrument and make special rules apply to that, as if that instrument had nothing to do with the musical tradition surrounding it.

I also don't like some of the implications made by the whole "tone/scale" construct. By the way you describe them, "scale" seems to represent the "educated", left-brain side of music, whereas "tone" would be the "emotional", right-brain side.

I think that's ridiculous. I don't believe you can place those two qualities on opposite sides of a scale and then use them to categorize music or musicians (yes, I do consider guitar players musicians, and I don't believe any differences should be inferred between that and, say, a pianist), because I don't believe there's any kind of mutual exclusiveness between them.

I suppose the most ironic thing of all is that this discussion takes place in a Jeff Beck thread, a musician who is primarily self-taught, consistently comes up with the most tonally and melodically inventive playing imaginable, and in himself is living testimony that this whole tone/scale comparison is no more than flawed reasoning and garbled semantics.


otek

[Slipperman]

Eek.

I'm staying out of it.

SM.

[otek]

Eek.

I'm staying out of it.

SM.


Fuck yeah.

Owning Slipperman!


otek

[kasta]

Advanced music education won't open your ears to the practical application of playing. Just cuz you understand it doesn't mean you can play it.


Some years ago, when I'd gone to pick up my son from his guitar lessons class, I overheard the wise old instructor (about 70 years, I think) telling what must have been a pesky 8-year old, asking too many questions: "Do you want to KNOW or do you want to PLAY?"

I feel the power of it even today - not the least because of the way he said it so casually, without the stilted air of one making up an aphorism or something.

[Dubnick]

Some years ago, when I'd gone to pick up my son from his guitar lessons class, I overheard the wise old instructor (about 70 years, I think) telling what must have been a pesky 8-year old, asking too many questions: "Do you want to KNOW or do you want to PLAY?"

I feel the power of it even today - not the least because of the way he said it so casually, without the stilted air of one making up an aphorism or something.It's a nice quote and, in context, very useful, but in general, it's not an either/or situation and I think that's the point. The irony is that an understanding of theory and how music and your instrument works is exactly what maximizes your ability to turn off that analytical part of your brain and just play. That having been said, there are also points, especially while one is concentrating on the mechanics of playing something difficult (whether it's your first chord progression or some insane lick), where thinking too analytically can hinder your progress. But to make the generalization that understanding how and why music works and being able to communicate with others on the subject is somehow a liability is absurd.

[kasta]

The irony is that an understanding of theory and how music and your instrument works is exactly what maximizes your ability to turn off that analytical part of your brain and just play.

Going by own struggle with the classical guitar in the formative years, I will tend to agree with what you've said. The irony bit is very true.

Like with most things, perhaps, it's a question of degree maybe? When you excessively seek 'understanding of theory' and stuff, you (in a manner of speaking) turn into a stuffed shirt and a general asshole much loathed by one and all - particularly those that have talent but not the technical words.

Without getting into some academic discussion of where the line of excess lies and who will decide that and so forth, it is safe to say that we all know an asshole when we meet one in practical life. Often, they are literally the KNOW-it-all variety who play less or nothing.

Barring this extreme end, if we are talking about being educated in the basics of the craft we choose to excel in, I am completely one with you. I am just instinctively wary of the 'knowledge-for-knowledge-sake' people, that's all. The ones who collect stuff rather than create - whether it be college degrees or books or gear or information or plug-ins. Cheers.

[otek]

Like with most things, perhaps, it's a question of degree maybe? When you excessively seek 'understanding of theory' and stuff, you (in a manner of speaking) turn into a stuffed shirt and a general asshole much loathed by one and all - particularly those that have talent but not the technical words.


I think it's actually more a question of a stage you go through.

People who are new to certain knowledge have a tendency to rely on it very heavily, because the theory is still too much of a conscious process. People fresh out of music college are far more likely to obsess about theory than players who have been around for a long time. It goes back to what I was saying before about internalizing theory, and forging your own style based on what you've learned.


otek

[kasta]

People who are new to certain knowledge have a tendency to rely on it very heavily, because the theory is still too much of a conscious process. People fresh out of music college are far more likely to obsess about theory than players who have been around for a long time.

That feels so true. Yes. Yes. Yes.:Thumbsup:


It goes back to what I was saying before about internalizing theory, and forging your own style based on what you've learned.

If this leap from theory to forging your own style happens naturally, bless your stars and whatnot. But since such a leap is always a scary one, you can get mis-directed into an easier path of more knowledge. So you enter the downward spiral of collecting more KNOWING (more plugs, more mics, etc.) and doing less PLAYING or creating. I know this. I've been through this. It's not nice. This is about all my original point was, I think.

[Ethan Winer]

Now tell me why learning theory will make me a better guitar player. To keep you on track, we're talking about playing guitar. Not writing music or playing piano, just playing guitar.

If all you do is play in isolation, then you're right - you don't need to know theory. But knowing about chords and how music works generally is useful to communicate to others. As in, "Hey Bill, you know that lick you play on the flat-9 chord at the end of the chorus? Make it a little less busy, eh? You're stepping on my lead-in" or whatever. Likewise, understanding chord theory can only help when playing over changes, unless all one does is three-chord rock.

I did a stint as a cameraman the other day helping a friend make a video of a symphony concert with a cello soloist. He hired me because I play the cello and know the pieces being played. Even as a cameraman knowing music theory was useful! I was better able to discuss planned shots with the cellist, and I spent an hour ahead of time with the score making notes, and so forth. Now, maybe that's more in the vein of reading music (all four clefs) than knowing theory, but IMO it's all helpful. And as otek said, it certainly won't hurt.

Lastly (whew), I imagine all good musicians understand music theory pretty well, even if they don't know the formal terms. Play an A minor chord with a major 7th, then drop the major 7th down to a minor 7th, then drop it again down to a 6th. Every guitar player knows that riff, even if they don't know the words to describe it. So I guess I'm agreeing with both sides. :lol:

--Ethan

[Dubnick]

you can get mis-directed into an easier path of more knowledge. So you enter the downward spiral of collecting more KNOWING (more plugs, more mics, etc.) and doing less PLAYING or creating.
While the learning process continually makes me more efficient at many things, the idea that somehow knowledge=crutch doesn't add up to me. I suppose if someone is approaching the learning process as only a memorization of facts and names for no practical end, as opposed to a process by which one comes to a better understanding of how things work (and can be re-worked in more original ways) and how to most efficiently communicate ideas with other's in that particular field, then it might be seen as a crutch, but to me, that isn't knowledge or understanding, that's memorization. Also, the more I learn, the more I come to understand that I know very little and that there is always more to learn - this makes for an endless journey of discovery, as I'm sure anyone who has been mixing for any length of time can tell you is a rewarding aspect of the work.

[Jasco]

While the learning process continually makes me more efficient at many things, the idea that somehow knowledge=crutch doesn't add up to me....

Also, the more I learn, the more I come to understand that I know very little and that there is always more to learn - this makes for an endless journey of discovery, as I'm sure anyone who has been mixing for any length of time can tell you is a rewarding aspect of the work.

Amen.

Anything you can do to gain more knowledge, and get practical application time with that knowledge is going to help. Most aspects of music that appear complex or difficult to execute become obvious and effortless with time spent absorbing and rehearsing them. And that is the point you can start really having fun with them.

[kasta]

the idea that somehow knowledge=crutch doesn't add up to me.

It doesn't for me either. I wasn't saying knowledge=crutch. More like knowledge=possible seduction. That has its own rewards, its own justifications. And can potentially keep you away from play time, creation time, etc. That's all I was saying. KNOWING can come in the way of PLAYING. Not always, not like a fucking golden rule. But it can. And does.

Again, like I said earlier, it's the excessive pursuit of knowledge I am trying to get across in these times of instant experts, over-analysis, magic plug-ins and whatnot. Some sort of a cautionary, be-warned kind of tone I thought I was bringing in to this thread - and also to myself, I guess.:grin:

[otek]

As theory becomes second nature, it nurtures the development of one's style. It's all a continuous thing.

Learning engineering, or any craft, works pretty much the same. I once set out to learn signal flow and gain scheduling because I wanted all that out of the way so I could concentrate on making music.


otek

[bbkong]

You kids need to listen to your uncle Otek and step away from the bong.

Don't confuse learning the language of music which hasn't changed in hundreds of years with the language of the junk that happens to record music these days. That crap comes and goes.

Show me someone who knows no theory and thinks he's a musician and I'll show you a blathering idiot who can't put 2 cohesive thoughts together or hold up his end of a normal conversation.

[Unfcknblvbl]

Isn't this the part where we dip to G-minor to highten the melodic tension?

NO, JUST WING THAT MOTHER!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/gounion/deathtongue1.jpg
.
.

[Dubnick]

Show me someone who knows no theory and thinks he's a musician and I'll show you a blathering idiot who can't put 2 cohesive thoughts together or hold up his end of a normal conversation. That sir, will be my new quote - thank you for putting it so succinctly.

[kasta]

I once set out to learn signal flow and gain scheduling because I wanted all that out of the way so I could concentrate on making music.

Thanks, uncle otek.:Thumbsup:

Originally Posted by bbkong View Post
Show me someone who knows no theory and thinks he's a musician and I'll show you a blathering idiot who can't put 2 cohesive thoughts together or hold up his end of a normal conversation.

Thanks, uncle bbkong. :Thumbsup:


Where's the confusion?

[Cosmic Pig]

Does Jeff Beck know theory? Did Hendrix? Gibbons? SRV?

Too many comments to start with the quotes. Most of you guys are a bunch of blindered tards so busy looking for a good circle jerk that you can't argue straight. Like most overeducated hacks the slightest inference that theory is a waste of time you explode into paroxysms of self aggrandized delusional drivel.


I agree with much of what Otek said and all of what Kasta said. I never said advanced knowledge is a bad thing, just that your time would be better spent playing live and learning the practical application of scales, tone, chords and patterns, than learning theory.

And that could be genre specific. If you want to play like the above mentioned tone players then fuck theory, if you want to play like Vai or Satch or Ingvie then you might need it.

Does theory cover the more advanced concepts of music like the feeling in a back seat of a '57 chevy? Or the bayou or back alley? That's a serious question because I don't know anything about theory.

But fuck all that, the bottom line is playing, so put up some examples of your chops. I'll bet that any of you with the balls to do it will notice that the over-educated among us will be all scale and very little tone.

So to put my money where my mouth is I'll put up two. This first one (http://members.shaw.ca/cosmicpig/unchainedmelody.mp3) is mostly scale. The solo is at 2:20.

The second one (http://members.shaw.ca/hiseffervescence/elliot.mp3) is more tone stuff through the whole tune, but the solo starts at 1:47.

Now I would imagine you tartes du jam will be pointing everywhere but at your own shit, so unless Mudcat or whoever you point at is willing to jump in the fray use your own shit.

Otherwise stfu. I used mine and I can't read music much less understand theory. I know a couple modes and thats about as advanced as I ever got.

Cos.

[otek]

Advanced music education is a waste of time.

I never said advanced knowledge is a bad thing

Most of you guys are a bunch of blindered tards so busy looking for a good circle jerk that you can't argue straight.


Given enough rope....... :Roll eyes:


your time would be better spent... learning the practical application of scales, tone, chords and patterns, than learning theory.

That's a bit contradictory; how do you apply something you don't know?

Does theory cover the more advanced concepts of music like the feeling in a back seat of a '57 chevy? Or the bayou or back alley? That's a serious question because I don't know anything about theory.

You may consider it serious but I am struggling to regard it as such.

The things you speak about are emotive experiences. It is not possible to teach emotion, though you can certainly teach people to channel it and use it creatively - which is where music theory comes into play.

But fuck all that, the bottom line is playing, so put up some examples of your chops. I'll bet that any of you with the balls to do it will notice that the over-educated among us will be all scale and very little tone.

Now I am seriously balking.

Surely you must realize that personal playing ability has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion? If you don't, you're more stoned than I thought.


otek

[bbkong]

Where's the confusion?

There's none among the educated, but I'm going to respond to a couple of misguided notions that our beloved Cosmic Pig has put forth:

Does Jeff Beck know theory? Did Hendrix? Gibbons? SRV?

Yes, X 4. Gotta study the history.

Let us get past the concept of tone. The tone that pleases your ear is just that, whether it's your tone that you devise for yourself or comp from some artist that rings your bell, no matter. Tone is an ephemeral thing that represents compromises between what you admire and what you can achieve with your pathetic pile of gear. That's a topic that drives 95% of tone debates on the internet. Shut up. Your fucking Ibanez through a carpet of pawn shop stomp boxes amplified by your crummy Peavey whatever the fuck it is doesn't impress me or any one else. Once you figure out how to make a great guitar sound great through a simple amplifying schematic, I'll be appropriately impressed.

If your pile of shit includes anything like Line6, Sansamp, solid state anything or tube simulating plugins, then I'll thank you to not open your mouth about tone in my presence. Trust me, I will go to extremes to humiliate you in front of your mama.

That is, if you expect me to take you seriously as an artist.

No, sorry, no excuses.


The English language, arguably the most proficient language on earth (French is a tie, but gets too wordy and German is over the top with tedious detail) requires a working knowledge of 26 letters to start with and gets more detailed as the level of comprehension requires understanding of higher concepts.

There, I said it.

Western music on the other hand requires an understanding of 13 letters in an alphabet. It's a language. Not fucking rocket science. Not Chinese or Arabic, music. 13 letters in the alphabet. Too simple to ignore.

The argument you present as a guitar player is a totally cheap shot. Not one among us doesn't understand that changing keys by a half step on a plank only requires sliding your hand a fret in one direction or another and everything's the same same, but try that on a sax or keys. It requires a whole new set of skills geared to that key. Guitar players are the laziest of fucks and the most over inflated self esteem merchants of drool on the fucking planet.

This may come as a bit of a shock, but Billy Gibbons does understand theory. Just because he devised a tone with Les Pauls and overdriven Vox amps and fed the market with a shit load of money making consistently simple chord progressions and drove it all to the bank doesn't mean he's a simpleton who doesn't understand theory. If you think so, then you aren't really hearing what he's done and you have no respect for his real accomplishment. But yeah, I can play those licks too.

I could teach a monkey to do it in 4 weeks too, but he wouldn't understand wtf he's doing.

I'm on a roll with this tonight because I just got home from a 6 hour jam out in Sherman Oaks at some forgettable bar that charged me too much for a shrimp cocktail and 3 vodka cranberries and it cost me ten bucks to use the valet parking even though I loaded in a Hammie with my new leslie and played for nothing. Don't give a fuck, really. I got to play with about a dozen of the top plank spankers in town and around 11 Boz Scaggs rolled through with some sax player chick who could tear up a solo and did 3 tunes I remembered from the 80's. I fuckin hung.

You know what kept me on stage? It was fucking theory. I never asked what song was next, just what key was next. The song didn't matter, I've heard most of em, know how they go, have an inkling of the chord progression because I know theory and make mental notes every time I hear something that sounds like it might last more than a month on the charts and I take notes. I pay attention to that language.

What surprised me the least were the number of 'feel' and 'tone' players who got on that stage, who after they had their little jack off moments had nothing whatsoever to contribute to a song that wasn't in line with their little 'feel' or 'tone' as you call it and wilted into the background and stfu because they had nothing to say. Those of us who knew wtf was really going on shared the eye contact, knew what to do and when and laughed because these twits got all lit up and had a few moments of glory in their inspiration that was delivered by a few seasoned pros who knew what to do and when in whatever the fuck key you got. Knowledge of theory lies right behind that.

Scale? Tone? wtf are you talking about? Putting up tracks?

Fuck that nancy shit. Get up on a stage with me and let's see what you really got. Mustang Sally in E flat. Show me how you're gonna make the fat chicks dance. Count it off.

I'm gonna indulge myself in saying that no pile of computer gear or software will EVER EVER EVER replace an inspiring performance. Not gonna happen. Get over it.

And theory? Yeah. Pretty useless. Unless you want to ever become something besides a one dimensional echo of something that was good at some point. Check out Lee Michaels.

Knock yerself out. Seeya in the dollar bin.




Oh, and to echo something that's already been said, I learned my theory in high school, internalized it and don't even think about it any more. It's just there, part of my brain. Just like reading English.
If you aint got it, then you aint talkin the language, yer babbling.

[Cosmic Pig]

Lol Otek, ya I suppose a waste of time could be construed as a bad thing.

Now as for the rest of it and BB's comments, what the fuck is theory? As I mentioned, you need to know the rules, as in scales, a few modes, and patterns and chords. So what is theory?

There's none among the educated, but I'm going to respond to a couple of misguided notions that our beloved Cosmic Pig has put forth:

You only love me because I stuck my ass in the air here and said have at 'er. Btw, I could probably hold my own on that stage, because unlike here, I know when to stfu and back others. But why inna fuck would you play Mustang Sally in E flat, or any key for that matter. Usually it's only over-educated assholes and kids trying to impress that call out tunes in stupid keys. Slide it up to E and play Suzi Q under it. See who lives through that. And ya I realize E is the shittiest key to play a hammond in. Hell play it F I don't care.

And ya I only need the key too, yet omifuckingod I don't know theory. How will I ever get through to the next chord. After a while you notice Shaboom Shaboom is the same pattern as Every Breath You Take, and you muddle through just guessing wildly seeing as you never leaned theory.

Also BB, I don't think you're talking about my definition of tone, its waaaay more than the knobs on the amp. Or the amp.

Anyways... I'm not hearing any examples here. All mine were off the cuff. Need a live example? (http://members.shaw.ca/helenduguay/summer.mp3) The funny thing about the solo in this tune is you can tell when I ran out of things to say by the fallback to scales every once in a while.

Btw BB, ya I'm talking about guitar, but if you have some hammond examples where you're using the drawbars and rotor speeds that would be considered tone. Lay it on me dude.

Cos.

[Jasco]

Cos,

Tell me if I'm understanding this correctly:

You are classifying guitar players as "tone" players if they play slow, sustained, feedbacky notes with lots of vibrato/tremolo bar, and manipulating effects such as wah and so forth?

And you are classifying "scale" playing as fast playing?

Or if I'm misunderstanding you, maybe you could explain more clearly to me.

I listened to your clips by the way. Good playing.

[bbkong]

Gak. I knew I was in here throwing a rant somewhere last night.

Now I can see why.


Usually it's only over-educated assholes and kids trying to impress that call out tunes in stupid keys.

Or sax players or people who know which key they sing best in, just to name a couple more.

Point made again, good job, thank you.

[Cosmic Pig]

Jasco, thanks for the compliment.

You sorta got the way I look at it, except speed isn't a factor beyond it seems to work out that way sometimes. Music is feeling and I see it as part of the feeling coming from the scale used, the notes, meter, rhythm, and myriad other factors that will effect emotion with notes.

I see tone as basically the way you said, the sounds created, except add a lot of other various ways to attack a note or make a sound, or not. Dead silence is also in the tone arsenal. Vibrato and amp are both in there too.

The magic happens when you put them together. Some guys don't seem to like the idea of breaking things down like that, maybe they figure it should all be instinct or something, which it is really. I blow as many solos as I get right so I like to look at what crapped on me. I strive to be a tone player so when my instincts fail me and I'm not saying anything I go back to the little 4 note blues box and fight my way out with tone.

It took me a fucking long time before I realized practicing more scales was not improving my solos... to me.

BB, singers who can't move it up or down a half step are usually not great. And whats the deal with sax? they like flats and sharps for some reason?

So will somebody explain to me what theory is? I'm beginning to think the definition isn't what I thought it was.

Cos.

[Dubnick]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so thoroughly and consistently prove the opposing argument correct with nearly ever statement they make. It almost seems like you're putting us on CP. If so, bravo - this is totally entertaining:grin:

[dwoz]

But why inna fuck would you play Mustang Sally in E flat, or any key for that matter. Usually it's only over-educated assholes and kids trying to impress that call out tunes in stupid keys. Slide it up to E and play Suzi Q under it. See who lives through that. And ya I realize E is the shittiest key to play a hammond in. Hell play it F I don't care.

Cos.

I'll take "Obvious Answer" for $200, Alex....


Why, My dear Pig...it's clear that you have scant opportunity to play on the same stage as a horn section.

See...changing key on guitar is as easy as playing the intro to a song before the stage lights are up...just put your hands down in the wrong place, and you've changed keys! easy!

But, the thing is, the horns LIVE in the flat keys. For them, having them play in the sharp keys (E is one...4 sharps) is like holding them underwater and asking them to take deep breaths.

dwoz

[otek]

I go back to the little 4 note blues box and fight my way out with tone.

So, out of curiosity, which one of the five notes do you typically exclude?

And which two of the seven modes?


otek

[Jasco]

OK, so here is my next question Cos,

Can acoustic guitarists be 'tone' players under your theory?

What about other instruments? Are there any that can't be 'tone' players. Any that can't be 'scale' players?



And, at the risk of having the mob turn on me, is it helpful to address Cos in a such condescending manner, despite differences of opinion with him?

He did ask three honest questions in his last post.

And whats the deal with sax? they like flats and sharps for some reason?

So will somebody explain to me what theory is? I'm beginning to think the definition isn't what I thought it was.

Perhaps there is a better way.

As BB Kong said, Cos, horns like flat keys. They are transposing instruments. When they read a "C" on their staff, it comes out as an Eb or Bb. Hence, you'll see books of charts like the Real Book in three different versions. C, Bb, Eb. Each of these have the same charts in different keys, so that when you get the appropriate book for your instrument, you'll be in the same real key as everyone else. Does that make sense?

I'll be back for some theory discussion - and maybe start a new thread on it - when I have more time.

[Cosmic Pig]

Dubnick, no I'm serious except for the baiting.

Dwoz, I didn't know that. You are correct I haven't had much time playing with horn players. Now I understand that silent suffering look they all seem to have.

Otek, blues box in A is G-A-C-D.

I know almost two modes, Phrygian and Loquiem I think. Shit I can't spell it much less play it.

Cosmic Wifey played bass pro for ten years before she even knew the names of the notes. She plays entirely by ear and drummers love her.

So I hear you guys talking, I see the gums a flapping and feel the waves of hot air, yet I don't hear anyone putting up examples of how great their playing is as a result of theory.

I know I'm not the sharpest tack in the haystack, or the greatest guitar player, but you guys are fulla shit. I'm not hearing any good reasons to learn theory yet.

Cos.

[dwoz]

I was once part of a little gathering, that happened at Berklee in the early '80s. We were gathered around a piano at which Chick Corea was sitting, in an empty concert hall, and he was noodling away, warming up for a concert that evening.

One of the Berkloids in the gathering, a whelp who certainly hadn't earned the right to lean on Chick Corea's piano in a private setting, asked him a series of fauning questions...

...one of which was clearly a blatant display of the kid's "Berklee theory chops"...I can't remember exactly, but something along the lines of "...so, in your 1977 recording (some record name) where you played (some Monk song), it was awesome how you reharmonized the bridge with that extended dominant run, where you intimated at a key change to the subtonic iii..."

And Chick (can I call you Chick?) pondered that statement for a moment, and said," I really don't know WHAT I played there...I just played some notes man..."

...and he played the tune segment "straight" as written in the Real Book, and then played it again as he had (more or less) on the record, and he frowned and thought for a moment.

After a bit of a pause, he said, "I can see where you would think that was extended dominants and a key change...yes, that sort of fits...especially if I do this inversion (changes fingering) but what I was really thinking there, was to play SUBSTITUTE dominants, which gave me a more linear lower structure voice leading...see? (he plays the left hand), and on top of that I just layered on whole-tone triad superstructures, like this (he plays the right hand)...and it worked better to support the soloist, who was blowing wholetone out into deep water, and he needed me to throw him a lifeline..."

(or, something very much to that effect).

Point being, "4 note box, with tone" is all well and good, but what if your bandmate is about to take the "A train" over a precipice, and you need to build some track FAST...years of studying what kind of structure is required translates into your fingers 'just knowing'.

dwoz

[dwoz]

I know almost two modes, Phrygian and Loquiem I think. Shit I can't spell it much less play it.



Cos.


Just for your pleasure and to start you on the road to Music Knowledge, here are the "main" modes:

Ionian
Dorian
Phrygian
Lydian
Mixolydian
Aeolian
Locrian


You might be very very surprised to hear that in spite of you "knowing" the phrygian and Locrian (requiem?) scales, you spend approx. 90% of your time SQUARELY within mixolydian ("mixo" for short).

The other half the time, (when you're playing a minor blues) you're in dorian with side trips to mixo and to melodic minor (which you've confused with phrygian...tossing the "blue note" in there can just make everything topsy-turvey).

Me, I'm just very partial to lydian kinds of structures...go listen to Dnafe's version of "join" on the CAPE radio to catch that train.


Oh, and everyone else....when the Pig says "tone" just substitute the word "phrasing" and you'll be able to figure out where he's parked his three-legged-stool...

dwoz

[Jasco]

So I hear you guys talking, I see the gums a flapping and feel the waves of hot air, yet I don't hear anyone putting up examples of how great their playing is as a result of theory.

I know I'm not the sharpest tack in the haystack, or the greatest guitar player, but you guys are fulla shit. I'm not hearing any good reasons to learn theory yet.

Cos.

I don't think anyone's playing is great as a result of theory. Rather theory is one tool that helps a person understand and organize musical thoughts, see relationships between note groups, as well as communicate with others who speak the same language.

[Dubnick]

Cos -

You have brightened these last few days with your unique take on things - I can't say this hasn't been entertaining if a little disheartening. At any rate, my guess is that your aversion to knowledge might be somewhat informed by the fact that a lot of times various elements of music theory are presented out of context and can come off as just a series of facts, names and numbers one memorizes to impress others.

I was thinking about this and remembered a somewhat similar discussion on the unicornation.com board that grew out of someone wanting a Chord Analyzer plug-in of some kind. Anyhow, at some point I started a response intended to a request for some book recommendations that might help one learn theory in a practical and understandable way. I ended up running on as I often do (this reply already being a case in point), but I basically gave the cliff notes on basic modal theory, chords, key, intervals and how it all ties together to help one begin to explore the possibilities. I figured I'd just paste it here so you can take or leave the info. I will say that however riddled with run-on sentences, mis-spellings and poor grammar it may be, it should be helpful in a very real and practical way and might help you see the value in understanding theory beyond just memorizing names to impress others with, which is all you seem to think theory is good for. Here goes:

From http://www.unicornation.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26495&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=chord+analyzer&start=15

".....There are plenty of books, some clear and succinct, some not so much, but I'd highly recommend sitting down with someone who understands theory to help you fill in the holes in any text you encounter and to answer any questions you have. I usually give all my students a series of handouts I've created to help them get the basic understanding together and (since I teach guitar) I often recommend either Practical Theory For Guitar by Don Latarski or Metal Lead Guitar Volume II by a guy named Troy Stetina for folks more into the rock side of things but the best book for learning theory really depends on your instrument (piano is actually the easiest instrument to learn theory on, IMO), the way you are best able to learn and the style of music interests you the most (I find that books that are geared toward applying theory to the style students are most interested in are very helpful).

That having been said, this is a pretty straightforward explanation of the basic modal system, from which all chords and chord relationships eventually flow:

http://www.josaka.com/Features/2005/Modal-Theory.htm

I would then refer to this site to learn the formal names of each interval and hear them in play here:

http://www.musicalintervalstutor.com/

(NOTE: there seems to be an omission on this site of the Diminished 5th interval, which is the same musical distance - 6 half steps - as an Augmented 4th. Which name is used is dependent on context - for instance from A to D# would be considered an Augmented 4th, while A to Eb would be considered a Diminished 5th. This may seem confusing but it's simply a way of avoiding letter/scale degree redundancies in scales/modes.)

A good idea would be to go back to that first link and attempt to spell out each of those seven modes with the formal interval names.

This is also a great site for helping you memorize and recognize intervals and chords:

musictheory.net

Once you have that stuff down, the concept gets easier.

Triads/Basic Chords:

The most basic chord is none as a triad - it basically reducing a 7 note scale/mode to three elements:

Root
3rd
5th

If you've memorized the intervals, you'll note that of those three elements, the 3rd is the only one that can be major or minor. The root is the starting point/reference point for the other intervals and 5ths can only either be Perfect (6 out of the Seven Diatonic Modes have Perfect 5ths) or Diminished (there is such a thing as an Augmented 5th, but that is best explored once a basic understanding of modal theory is achieved). This makes the 3rd the determining factor in chords and the modes they come from, when categorizing them as either Major or Minor (SIDE NOTE: think of Major and Minor as types. While there is a scale often referred to as "The" major scale - Ionian Mode - as well as one often referred to as "The" minor scale - Aeolian Mode - it is perhaps a good idea to think of said scales as the Archetypal Modes of their types and not as actually defining the terms Major and Minor).

You'll note that a basic triad is really a stacking of two 3rds, or if it's easier to think of it this way, it's a stacking of the first three odd numbers in a seven note scale. If you read and understood the first link, you'll see that the 7 diatonic modes created from the initial "Major" scale (aka Ionian Mode) each create a different type of chord, which are often referred to in Roman numerals to correlate to the modes that created them:

I comes from Ionian

ii comes from Dorian (the lower case roman numerals indicate a minor chord)

iii comes from Phrygian

IV comes from Lydian

V comes from Mixolydian

vi comes from Aeolian

vii diminished comes from Locrian (in other words, the basic triad created by Locrian is minor because the mode contains a minor 3rd, but it also has a diminished 5th, so it is generally referred to as a Diminished triad, the assumption being that the 3rd is automatically minor)

Seventh Chords:

Once you've got that concept, making sense of how 7th chords come into play is easy - you're essentially just adding another 3rd or odd number to the stack.

Seventh chords come in the following categories:

Major 7th = Major Triad + Major 7th
Minor 7th = Minor Triad + Minor 7th
Dominant 7th (usually written as something like G7)=Major Triad + Minor 7th
Half Diminished 7th or Minor 7th b5 = Diminished Triad + Minor 7th

TWO NOTES:
In the name "Dominant 7th", the "Dominant" refers not to the 7th, but the fact that the tension created by the particular type of 7th chord, from the tense relationship between the Major 3rd and Minor 7th, means that it plays a pivotal or dominant role in any key. It's the itch that the tonic or I chord scratches. It is the tension in tension and release, which makes it very important.

Also, some may wonder why a Diminished Triad + Minor 7th = a Half Diminished 7th or Minor 7th b5 chord and isn't known as just a Diminished 7th chord. There is such a thing as a Diminished 7th chord (Root, min3rd, diminished 5th, double flat 7th), and it's actually constructed in the same way as any other 7th chord, but from a different scale system (as you may have guessed, the diminished scale). Your next question might be - what the hell is a double flat 7th? Good question, but I would advise not to worry about this until you understand the whole modal/chord theory idea.

7TH Chords In The Context Of The Key Of C:

C Ionian-> CMaj7 = Maj Triad + Maj7th
D Dorian ->Dmin7 = min triad + min7th
E Phrygian->Emin7 = min triad + min7th
F Lydian -> FMaj7 = Maj Triad + Maj7th
G Mixolydian->G7 = Maj Triad + min7th
A Aeolian -> Amin7 = min triad + min7th
B Locrian -> Bmin7b5= diminished trian + min7th

9th Chords:

Really for basic 9th chords, the concept is pretty much a continuation of the stacking thirds/odd numbers idea. Now, when we play melody we are only playing one note at a time, so there's not much use for numbering scale degrees in the second octave, especially since you're dealing with the same notes. However, in chords, it's possible to play more than one octave at once, so the numbering continues through the second octave. However, unlike the first octave intervals, the second octave intervals are noted by their numbers alone, with the assumption being that the "natural" state of the second octave intervals are those of "The" major scale (Ionian), and any modifications to their "natural" state is noted by # or b signs. I'll use the 9th as an example:

SECOND OCT. INTERVALS EXAMPLE:

9th = Major Second in the second octave (C1 -> D2 on the piano roll)
b9th = Minor Second in the second octave (C1 -> Db2)
#9th = Enharmonic of the minor 3rd (same distance) but considered a passing tone between a Major Second and a Major Third (C1-> D#)

That last one is confusing, I know, and again, there is a reasoning behind it, but it's best to understand the modal/chord basics before getting into stuff like Augmented 5ths, Double Flat 7ths and #9ths - things that, on the surface, don't seem to make sense. You have to trust me that there is logic to them, but getting into that logic would cloud things up at the basics level.

Anyhow, like I said, 9th chords are an extension of the stacking 3rds/odd number's concept:

Key Of C Example:

C Ionian -> CMaj9th = Major 7th Chord + 9th

D Dorian -> DMin9th = Minor 7th Chord + 9th

E Phrygian-> Emin7thb9 = Minor 7th Chord + b9th
(because Phrygian has min2nd)

F Lydian -> FMaj9th = Major 7th Chord + 9th

G Mixolydian->G9 = Dominant 7th +9th

A Aeolian -> AMin9th = Minor 7th Chord + 9th

B Locrian -> BMin7thb5b9 = Min. 7thb5 Chord + b9th

I know that last part might be confusing but if you go over stuff a couple times, it's not too hard to get.

One more thing:

9th Chord, Add 9, or Sus2? (Or when is a 2nd and 2nd?)

I know this can cause some confusion for a lot of folks, but it's not too hard:

If a 2nd is replacing the 3rd in a chord, it's referred to as a second, as in a Sus2 chord (Suspended 2nd - get it? You're are essentially temporarily replacing the crucial 3rd with the 2nd - hence it's a suspended 2nd):

C Sus2 = C, D, G

If a 2nd is played in addition to the 3rd in a chord, regardless of whether separated by an octave, it is referred to as a 9th.

C Add9 = C, E, G, D (C Major Triad + 9th)

C Maj9th = C, E, G, B, D (Major 7th Chord + 9th)

As you can see, the difference between an Add9 and 9th Chord is that an Add9 chord is a basic triad (root, 3rd, 5th), with the 9th added on top (hence the name Add9), whereas a 9th chord is a stacking of 3rds or odd number scale degrees up through the 9th."

Hope you find that of some use and sorry for long reply.

EDIT: A couple of other things that may help to mention:

#1) This is obviously not a full and comprehensive overview of every aspect of theory - exploring even a limited number of the possibilies would fill many, many books. It may, however, be a decent starting point that gives you some practical reasons to want to connect the dots.

#2) The pentatonic (penta=5) scales are simply a reduction of modes to those notes common among thier type (minor or major). For example, of the seven modes, 3 are major in type (having a major 3rd) and four are minor in type (having a minor 3rd). Of those four minor modes, one has a diminished 5th (Locrian), so let's temporarily put that aside to illustrate the point. Putting aside Locrian for the moment, we're left with three major modes (Ionian, Lydian & Mixolydian) and three minor modes (Aeolian, Dorian and Phrygian).

Now all the major modes have traits they share and traits that distinguish them from each other - they all have the following elements in common:

Root, Major 2nd, Major 3rd, Perfect 5th, Major 6th

This is where you get the Major Pentatonic scale - you're are basically removing the "variables" (in this case, the 4th and 7th), if you will, from the seven note modes of that type.

Same concept applies to the relationship between the Minor Pentatonic scale and the minor modes (with the exception of Locrian) - they all the following elements in common:

Root, minor 3rd, Perfect 4th, Perfect 5th, minor 7th

This is where you get the minor Pentatonic scale - you're are basically removing the "variables" (in the case of the minor modes, the variables are the 2nd and the 6th), if you will, from the seven note modes of that type.

As I said, Locrian is an exception because it has a diminished fifth, but you can adjust the 5th of the minor pentatonic scale to work in the same manner with Locrian.

Also, the major and minor pentatonic relate to each other in the same way the modes do, which makes sense, since they are simply a reduction of those very same modes (not totally seperate entities). For example, just as C Ionian and A Aeolian are actually the same seven notes with different tonal centers, the C Major Pentatonic scale (C, D, E, G, A) is actually the same five notes as the A Minor Pentatonic scale (A, C, D, E, G) but with a different tonal center.

As you can see, the "blues box" (named for the square type of shape it makes most of the time when played on the guitar) scale you referred to is simply a minor pentatonic minus the 5th. One of the reasons the pentatonic scales are so often used with such musical results is that the omission of a couple scale degrees allows for more contrast and less temptation to simply run up and down sequential notes, which just starts sounding like one is practicing scales. However, the pentatonic scales are not seperate from the modes, in fact, they are derived from the modes. Another reason pentatonic scales are so often used is that the very nature of them is to remove variables which cause potential conflicts when you improvise. If you can hear the chord progression is centered around a major chord, you can safely use the major pentatonic scale most of the time, because you are basically avoiding notes you are unsure of.

It's also interesting, if completely coincidental, that you refer to that partial pentatonic scale as a blues "box", because as simple as the blues might seem to play, the basic blues chord changes (variations on I7-IV7-V7) actually one of the more harmonically complex structures in popular music (although it only starts to hint at the depth of harmonic complexity that is jazz - try keeping up with a decent jazz trio with no theory - good luck!). You are essentially changing keys with every chord in a blues progression and the way all the pieces weave in, out and around each other make for nearly endless possibities for soloing. The interesting and awesome paradox of the blues is that one can be as interesting or pedestrian in thier approach to soloing over the changes as they choose to be (or have to be by default) and be equally compelling. But one of the things that distinguishes one blues player's style from another is thier understanding of the changes they are soloing over, and the subsequent choices they make from that understanding and vantage point. What I mean to say is, "blues box" might be an easy way to name a shape you are playing, but a blues scale is, in reality actually a fusion of a few different scales in combination with some passing notes that help further liquify the slippery nature of the beautiful blues beast. Knowing theory helps expand your possibilities, even and especially in the blues.

One last thing - you mentioned Hendrix as someone you for some reason doubt had any understanding of music theory. Pick up the opening to Little Wing and look at what your playing and how it relates to the underlying chord progression. Now do the same with Castles Made Of Sand. Check out the various chord inversions uses in just the opening chords of Wind Cries Mary. You'd have a hard time arguing Hendrix didn't know chord structure inside and out. Also, a large chunk of his material played with the disonance of playing a #9 against a major 3rd, which is born of the blues, but he centered in on a lot more than most and that focus alone gave him quite a signature. It should be noted that just because someone hasn't memorized the nomenclature of the modes, for instance, it doesn't mean they don't understand and use music theory actively every time they play and I would say that nearly every musician that's been playing for some length of time and can hold thier own at least knows the all the intervals and the structure of the chords they play and play over.

I've now made this way to long, and by this point you've probably already read the original post and fired off something incredibly silly that I can't wait to read. Oh, well.

[Trazan]

If you want to play like the above mentioned tone players then fuck theory, if you want to play like Vai or Satch or Ingvie then you might need it.

I think maybe you're mixing up theory with technique? Shredders play fast. They don't need theory, they only need lotsa fingers.

I'll bet that any of you with the balls to do it will notice that the over-educated among us will be all scale and very little tone.

Academics don't have feelings, you mean? Being both musical and clever is perfectly possible :Twisted: As long as one knows how to use theory as a helping aid in creative endeavors and situations I see nothing bad about it. One may even expand some horizons :icon_eek:

Btw...you mention that instead of reading theory one might be better off learning practical implementation of scales, chords etc....? What do you think friggin' theory is, really? You obviously know some scales and chords....where do you draw the limit? When you know more than 10 chords you lose tone? It's not like the color red becomes less red when you learn what it's called. Learn even more about colors and you might even be able to mix some really beautiful ones, some you never saw before. Now if you hate learning more about colors you obviously won't, and probably shouldn't.

Theory can be restrictive, I'll give you that, but that's only when you're a slave to it, and ya can't blame theory for that. There's always a balance to be found, and that balance is very personal. If there's little theory involved for yourself to play your best so be it. Buuuut....don't you ever get fed up with the same old? You mentioned being out of ideas....fill yerself up with some nasty theory and new ones might surface! They might sound like shit in the beginning but after a while these new words will be a natural part of your vocabulary.

[Shotgun]

Too many comments to start with the quotes. Most of you guys are a bunch of blindered tards so busy looking for a good circle jerk that you can't argue straight. Like most overeducated hacks the slightest inference that theory is a waste of time you explode into paroxysms of self aggrandized delusional drivel.

First of all, do you want your change back for all those $2 words? Where do you get off learning a language? You've lost all your goddamn verbal tone, you stupid fuck. Plus, that sentence full of big'uns is actually gramattically incorrect.



I never said advanced knowledge is a bad thing, just that your time would be better spent playing live and learning the practical application of scales, tone, chords and patterns, than learning theory.

So, what you're saying, metaphorically, is, that it would be much better to spend ones time learning the practical applications of the gas pedal, steering wheel, brake pedal and turn signals rather than studying on how to drive a car, right? Did your momma have any children that lived?



Does theory cover the more advanced concepts of music like the feeling in a back seat of a '57 chevy? Or the bayou or back alley? That's a serious question because I don't know anything about theory.

Here's where we start to figure out what's really going on in the pea brain of a pig. Say, anybody have 3 cliches I could borrow? The worn-out, threadbare kind please. The feeling in the back seat of a 1957 Bel Air is one of hot-ass vinyl sticking to your bare legs. The feeling of the "bayou" (and I bet you don't even know the difference between a bayou and a swamp) is kinda wet. The feeling of a back alley is...well, I think you're getting the point. You're caught the fuck up in a buncha over-romanticized bullshit that passes for "real emotional artistico shit". You remind me of young bands that say "yeah, we're just starting out but we don't wanna do covers, cuz we wanna make our OWN sound".

Bonus: If you read the above paragraph slowly and enough times, you can predict how the following audio clips will sound.


But fuck all that, the bottom line is playing, so put up some examples of your chops. I'll bet that any of you with the balls to do it will notice that the over-educated among us will be all scale and very little tone.

How about I post you an audio clip of me yacking my spaghetti dinner up listening to this shit? ABSOLUTE SHIT I TELL YOU. Read on....



So to put my money where my mouth is I'll put up two. This first one (http://members.shaw.ca/cosmicpig/unchainedmelody.mp3) is mostly scale. The solo is at 2:20.

Ok, I literally, and seriously just peed in my pants. Now I have to go down to the laundry room. Hold on...kay?

[pause]


Ok, I'm back. Alright, so your musical vocabulary is SO limited that you can ONLY think in terms of electric guitar, and then only from the two perspectives of (1) Players who play slower leads, with more sustain and vibrato a.k.a. "tone" players and (2) Players who play faster leads with lots of notes and less sustain or vibrato a.k.a. "scale" players--YET YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY IN YOUR "SCALE" MODE FOR THE PROTOTYPICAL POP/SOUL BALLAD??????? Seriously? Oh. My. Fucking. God.

First tip: Don't ever cover unchained melody. Nobody. Ever. Fucking ever. Tired of it. You can't do it right, you are not the Righteous Brothers. Just stop, ok?

Second tip: Who the FUCK was playing your drum machine, Dumbtits? For the love of CHRIST at least learn enough theory to figure out why quantization is a baaaaaaaad thing in this case. Man that sounds like a puke sandwich.

Third tip: WHOLLY forgettable guitar lead. FOR-GET-UH-BULL. Know what I liked? Some of the phrasing. A few of your grace notes were kind of neat. Otherwise, you'd get asked to fucking leave. This is what you call "scale" playing? Why? Cuz there were 16th notes in it? For real?





The second one (http://members.shaw.ca/hiseffervescence/elliot.mp3) is more tone stuff through the whole tune, but the solo starts at 1:47.


:icon_eek: um, you willingly put this motherfucker somewhere somebody could hear it? Hoooooly jeebus. I dunno what to even say. So, that's your tone huh? My. What a tone it is. My. My. Bunerrab help you with that?



Now I would imagine you tartes du jam will be pointing everywhere but at your own shit, so unless Mudcat or whoever you point at is willing to jump in the fray use your own shit.

Otherwise stfu. I used mine and I can't read music much less understand theory. I know a couple modes and thats about as advanced as I ever got.

Cos.
Ya know what, sparky? I'd just about post you a clip of me playing except for one unfortunate fact--you have no ears. So what good would it do you? Seriously, if you consider the above clips to be evidence of "See, I can play like HELL and I don't know any music theory so nobody else NEEDS to!" then it wouldn't do anybody any good to show you anything played by a person with more knowlege. You just wouldn't fuckin get it.

Here's your problem: You've learned to play much in the way many of us did, by ear and by yourself. Then, apparently, your wife came along and "played pro bass" or what-the-fuck-ever without knowing what a mode was so you committed the fallacy of Hasty Generalization and concluded that since YOU and HER don't know any (much) music theory, that NOBODY should. Clearly you play just fine, right?

Wrong.

Furthermore, you've been conditioned to dislike anyone who's in the "theory" camp as you see it because of (1) a subconcious feeling of inadequacy because you never learned that stuff and (2) somebody with some musical knowledge probably scorned and/or made fun of you at some point and it hurt your feelings.

Here's the pisser: YOU KNOW MUSIC THEORY. If you know a chord or a scale, you know some music theory. Clearly you don't even know what is meant by the term, so it's no surprise you didn't realize that. So what you really need to do, oh porcine Corky, is to shut your fuckin dick-sucker for about two minutes and listen to what you might be missing before you completely dismiss something you aren't even sure what is. You smell what I'm cookin?

Didn't I hear from someone that you fancied yourself a "producer"? Honestly, tell me I'm wrong about that. Because if your musical vocabulary is that goddamn narrow then you've got as much right calling yourself a "producer" as I've got calling myself Otek. And I know Otek, and I'M NO OTEK. Honestly. Seriously. No foolin, jack. God forBID you ever walk into a session with a sitar player. "What's all that buzzin?? Lemme tell ya bout TONE!"


Holy crap. Have fun, Pig, cuz you're gonna be here a while.

Hugs & Kisses,
Your Pal Shotgun


PS--
Here's your FIRST music theory lesson: The word "solo" means "by your goddamn self". There were no guitar SOLOS in the pieces you posted. What you meant was "lead passage". It's a lead, not a solo. It's only a solo if nobody else is playing.

[Cosmic Pig]

Holy crap.

Jasco, yes every instrument has some manipulation of tone involved. I suspect electric guitar has more options available, but I could be wrong. You don't see many whammy bars on a piano, although there have been some pretty wierd attempts. I remember back in the eighties one keyboard had a thing you blew into.... Or maybe the tonal options on an acoustic string or wind instrument are just more subtle.

Dwoz, If you want to play like Chick Corea, ya you better have some advanced knowledge. In fact maybe piano needs theory because of its limited or more subtle tone options. With piano you have hard or soft... mind you there's also the slightly outa tune honky tonk and a few other tones...

If somebody on stage decides to "Take the A train over the edge" they better have their shit together. They better know the players on stage can follow for starters, otherwise its just pointless showing off while the band train wrecks. I don't think you need theory for that, just solid players with big ears. My old band used to do that all the time with key changes, double time and all kinds of sideways stuff. Thats why our old keyboard player who's now in a "famous band" misses us so much. To be honest I couldn't keep up sometimes but that was from not knowing the different styles more than the chords. I can't play chicken pickin country worth shit, and when the band hops on that one in the middle of Redhouse or I can't Stop Loving You, I'm fucked. But I play along anyways cuz it's still 3 chords. But if some decides to throw in the 2-3-6-5 turnaround in a blues I'm down with it.

And thanks for the update on where I play. I'll check out Dnafe's tune to see what you mean by Lydian.

Jasco, I agree with that.

Dubnick, Thanks for the lesson, I had to skim most of it, but I am interested and will peruse it later when I have more time. So I gather from everything that theory is the study of scales and chords and how they work, which is exactly why I'm saying that its a waste of time, although I'm slowly moving my opinion over to its not a waste, rather its not what I need to improve my playing at this time. I don't think theory covers why bending the note on the low E behind the nut using the bridge pickup through a Marshall sounds cool. Or why getting drunk and throwing your guitar on the stage and stomping the whammy while it feeds back is cool... at the time... or why you feel like an idiot the next day. Thats where I'm at and why I find Beck fascinating. Its the tones he uses that grab me not the scale.

Which brings me back to Dwoz, no I'm not talking about phrasing, I'm talking about sound.

But getting back to Dubnick's post; I get that theory will, in theory, tell me what sounds cool in the blues by understanding what scale fits where. This is my point; I disagree becuase playing with the band is how I got to know why this note sounds cool here and not there at this point in the pattern.

Iv'e run across more than a few grade ten conservatory players who really had no idea what notes sound cool where. I've even run across a few who couldn't play 12 bar without a chart.

In short, I've never seen a player get better with education. Mostly I've run across educated players of all abilities who were frustrated when nobody understood their language. I hosted a blues and classic jam in town here for about ten years, and its been my experience that if you know what a major or minor is, if you know what a 6-5 turnaround is and using the number system, you're good to go.

And yes Hendrix had some interesting stuff that obviously took some knowledge.

Sooo.... I was about to post this and I notice Shotgun put his two bits in.

Holy crap dude that was some funny shit. I hardly know what to say. You might be right in much of it. I may be a shitty producer and a hack player but really, fuck off and put up some music. You talk the talk but you apparently can't back it up. I at least had the balls to put it out there ya chickenshit. I put up my stuff to maybe learn or maybe teach something. You're just an asshole blowing farts until we see some actual shit. And you just know I'm gonna have a party if its not great.

My ego is impervious to your wheezing hoop. But I must admit I had a good chuckle. Next time at the gig I'm gonna use the term "lead passage" at the guys and watch em laugh and call me a fag. I'll also grant you that it might all be true, I suck at everything and know nothing. Keeping it real over here.

At any rate, funnily enough, nobody has convinced me that advanced music education is better than going out and playing.

And really, for all the offended bleating going on you'd think someone would put up something other than rhetoric.

There's a lot more to talk about here but I'm outa time.

edit; just noticed something else there Shotgun, you can't tell the difference between a real drummer with no click track and a quantized drum machine? The credibility of your insults has dropped some dude.

Cos.

[otek]

Otek, blues box in A is G-A-C-D.

Ok, so I know the 5th is probably the least "characteristic" degree of a chord, but I would occasionally like to play an E over an A blues - and preferrably even an Eb. Can I, or am I considered "scale" then? :very happy: :Wink:


otek

[kasta]

Plus, that sentence full of big'uns is actually gramattically incorrect.

Hmm.

[Trazan]

At any rate, funnily enough, nobody has convinced me that advanced music education is better than going out and playing.

What do you mean "better than"? Does it have to be either /or?

But.

You didn't define the goal clearly. The goal is obviously to play the tried and true, the blues. No funny chords or unfamiliar anything, just the language that you learned growing up.

That's fine, you won't need much theory for that, just like you don't need to study litterature to tell a good joke. I'm pretty sure you'd still be able to tell good jokes if you did study litterature though.

I'm probably one of those "over-educated" ones that you speak of. But I say, in my own arrogant way, that I'm actually less scale oriented than you when playing the blues because my knowledge gives me freedom. You're just as theoretic as me, you just know less, hah. I don't think theoretically while playing such music, but studying (and obviously trying out) has trained my ear and expanded my language greatly. I can even play other types of music!

No, you don't study theory to understand bends and vibrato, you hear that. You study to challenge what you hear and from that hopefully hear more.

[Aardvark]

...Show me someone who knows no theory and thinks he's a musician and I'll show you a blathering idiot who can't put 2 cohesive thoughts together or hold up his end of a normal conversation.


Well... then meet Aardvark.

I am not proud to say that I can't read anything but a Nashville chart and I never studied theory but such is the case.

This, however, has not kept me from being able to well express myself on a number of instruments and earning a living at various times by the sole means of performing live on those instruments.

Besides claiming to be a musician, I consider myself capable of holding my own in virtually any conversation in addition to being demonstrably capable at stringing two cohesive thoughts together.

My lack of formal music education has not kept me from being able to hear bad, weak playing... be it from schooled or unschooled players... nor has it precluded my direct participation in complex arranging for schooled players and the vital communication of conducting said players in complicated recording environs.

(I should also point out that many of the most soul-less and mechanical players I have ever worked with came from the world of classical music where being a reliable mechanical cog is often mistaken for having inherent musicality.)

I have recorded hundred of players from across the entire spectrum of education, talent and broad recognition and can assure you that there are a number of absolute killer musicians, professional musicians, who know nothing of theory. The Bluegrass community is good place to start looking.




Cheers,
Aardvark
:Wink:



.

[Dubnick]

I am not proud to say that I can't read anything but a Nashville chart and I never studied theory but such is the case.Whether or not you have ever studied theory formally, you use theory in deciphering a Nashville chart. I think there is a general misconception here that music theory only means the modal system or having certain names of things memorized or that somehow, if you are knowledgable about theory, it means that you adhere strictly to some sort of imaginary restrictive set of rules - the opposite is true the more theory you learn, the more possibilities you see and the more effectively you can side step cliche and keep things interesting. Whether or not someone has studied or understands the law of gravity, it still applies to them and it would seem particularly silly to actually be strongly against it, wouldn't it? Everytime one decides establishes a preference of certain notes to other notes over a given chord or chord progression, they are using theory. Everytime someone calls out a chord to another player, they are using theory. Hell, every conversation that involves, upbeat, downbeat, pick-up, etc. is a conversation that involves the use of theory. What I don't get is why people are so afraid of and show such disdain for something they use daily. CP's strong opposition to music theory and negative generalizations about anyone who utilizes an understanding of music theory is particularly amusing considering that in at least one of the examples he posted of his playing, he's relying heavily on those very modes he claims to disdain for some bizarre reason. CP's comments reminds me of the Clayton Bigsby character Dave Chappelle played in his Frontline: Blind Supremacy skit on his show. In the skit, Dave plays a blind white supremacist who is unaware of the fact that he is actually black. Additionally, some of the things he says in service of his argument against understanding theory are on a par with with Steve Carrell's character in the 40 Year Old Virgin talking about women ("You know, when you, like, you grab a woman's breast and it's... and you feel it and... it feels like a bag of sand when you're touching it.").

One more thing - with all the bashing of auto-tune, beat detective, etc. take when it comes to why music is suffering these days in terms of substance and sonic impact, it strikes me that the fact that back in the day, many of the better producers and engineer's had a pretty thorough understanding of music theory/arranging (Tom Down, Arif Marden, Ahmet Ertegün, Quincy Jones, George Martin, etc) and that the lack of multiple tracks beyond 4 to 8 forced artists to take a more proactive role in making sure the arrangements worked before tracking them might have a lot more to do with the timeless quality of those records than is given credit. Additionally, one can site many bands where musician's formal understanding of theory and arrangement helped immensely in the sonic impact of thier records and didn't make them rock any less or reduce them to complete wank fests, including acts like Zeppelin and the Funk Brothers,

[Shotgun]

Holy crap dude that was some funny shit. I hardly know what to say. You might be right in much of it. I may be a shitty producer and a hack player but really, fuck off and put up some music. You talk the talk but you apparently can't back it up. I at least had the balls to put it out there ya chickenshit. I put up my stuff to maybe learn or maybe teach something. You're just an asshole blowing farts until we see some actual shit. And you just know I'm gonna have a party if its not great.

My ego is impervious to your wheezing hoop. But I must admit I had a good chuckle. Next time at the gig I'm gonna use the term "lead passage" at the guys and watch em laugh and call me a fag. I'll also grant you that it might all be true, I suck at everything and know nothing. Keeping it real over here.

At any rate, funnily enough, nobody has convinced me that advanced music education is better than going out and playing.



That's the problem you have, dicksnot. It's not better, nor is it worse. That's what we've been trying to tell you, or, at least what I've been trying to tell you. You still cling to the idea that "well, if you say you have some theory knowledge and I don't like your playing that you post on the interweb then you're an idiot!" It's all bullshit, sparky. I could tell you a thousand things wrong with both your playing, the performances of other musos in those tracks and whoever recorded it (be it you or someone else). I could tell you those things, sometimes, from the perspective of a musical "theory" or, that is, some technical thing or other. Likewise with the recordings. That doesn't, however, mean anything positive OR negative about my knowledge or your lack thereof. It just gives me a language to use that you can't follow, which puts you at a disadvantage--if you can't see that, there's nothing anyone here can do for you.

Furthermore, I will again decline your invitation to not be a pussy and "put up something". It still won't matter. And if you choose to discount everything I say just because I won't let you critique my guitar playing, that's fine too. It should be clear to anyone who's read even part of this thread that you exist as a fish in a pond of a certain size and that you, as that fish, float steadfastly near some rocks you hold pretty special. You will not now, nor ever, swim away from those rocks no matter how much cajoling, how many insults or how much real logic we dangle in front of you. Clearly you were hooked once and are not going to be stupid enough to make that mistake again. So bravo to ya, sunshine, you made it. You're a real musician who sees the truth and won't be fooled by that silly-ass education shit. Good on ya. Have fun in your pond.

Love,
Your Pal Shotgun

[dwoz]

One very important point to keep in mind in discussions like this, is that music theory, and PARTICULARLY "Functional Harmony" (which is a rather specific term describing what we all recognize as "music theory"...


...is an EMPIRICAL discipline.

From Webster's dictionary, via wikipedia:

Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation.


We could conduct our own experiment. We could sit that Del McCoury or some such like him down, play him back a recording of himself, and stop at various places...

"so, Del...WHY did you play that particular note, right there?"...


..."well, on reflection, I think I played it because it's only a half step away from the "main" note, and it sounds kinda good 'n greasy to just slide into that main note from a close neighbor. Also it kinda telegraphs to the rest of the guys where I'm heading to and trying to end up..."

So, we hear him, in an entirely empirical way, express the "music theory rule" of leading tones in half-step resolution, most commonly seen in the area of dominant-tonic resolution of the tritone to chord tone, by stepwise motion.

We go through his whole "solo" (sorry shotty!) like that, and by the end of it, he has pretty much read back to us our entire "functional harmony 201" textbook.

Does he then "not know" theory? au contraire, he knows theory VERY well. He uses it every day, on every stinkin' note.

..."so, Del...what about this note here?"

..."well, THAT note....well, that one's a clam."

..."how do you come by that, Del?"

..."you see, if you listen close, it doesn't sound so good against the melody...it kind of clashes, and what I was SUPPOSED to play was this other note here, next to it."

...Ahh....if there is no music theory, then there can be NO "WRONG" notes. He clearly meant to say, that it's a "music theory rule" to avoid playing a b9 interval against a lead melody note, except perhaps fleetingly, in passing.


EVERY good player knows theory.


dwoz

[Aardvark]

{snip}


I could care less about Cosmic's brain-farts... I take certain umbrage with Bubba's comment. As someone who has been working in music for decades, I hold the value of musical education in great esteem but I will take musicality as a barometer of worthiness first and foremost regardless of one's background be it formal or informal.

Besides, the music came along well before the theory. People had sophisticated ideas that, by your comment to my chart reading, were using theory before anyone was able to even notate, let alone present theoretical models for consumption and usage. Ergo, one can be a great musician and not know squat about theory.



Cheers,
Aardvark




P.S. A guitar player who can count frets and use a capo doesn't use much theory to follow a Nashville chart.:Wink:



.

[Dubnick]

Besides, the music came along well before the theory. People had sophisticated ideas that, by your comment to my chart reading, were using theory before anyone was able to even notate, let alone present theoretical models for consumption and usage. Ergo, one can be a great musician and not know squat about theory.



Cheers,
Aardvark




P.S. A guitar player who can count frets and use a capo doesn't use much theory to follow a Nashville chart.:Wink:



.I just wanted to say that dwoz just did a far better job of putting across what I was trying to say there in the post above and might better explain what I mean.

Also, and I mean this not in any kind of disrespectful or sarcastic way, but purely as a hypothetical:

Say someone says to you, "I don't need come to any understanding of how or why compression, eq, etc. work to be a mix engineer! I've got these channel presets in Logic that I can pull up and turn the knobs till it sounds right!". Let's say that person takes this approach and even gets some decent results. Is this person a mix engineer in your eyes?

[dwoz]

Dubnick, I liked your "laws of gravity" analogy....



dwoz

[Aardvark]

...Say someone says to you, "I don't need come to any understanding of how or why compression, eq, etc. work to be a mix engineer! I've got these channel presets in Logic that I can pull up and turn the knobs till it sounds right!". Let's say that person takes this approach and even gets some decent results. Is this person a mix engineer in your eyes?

Hell, I can't get a decent mix in Logic so yes!:lol::lol:

He or she are likely just not very good mix engineers.

I should also point out that when I started learning the craft there was nobody around to help and few, if any, decent books on the subject. Much of what I learned was from turning the knobs until things sounded right... same with placing and moving mics... I knew shit about how they actually worked from a mechanical point of view. Plug mic in, shove in front of sound source, hope you don't blow it up.





Cheers,
Aardvark


.

[archtop]

O.K. I think Tim Lerch can settle this.

Classic blues song --Cold shot--

A cat that really knows theory. (IMO one of the top 10 guitarist walking, and I bet Jeff Beck would agree, and I'm super stoked to be doing a guitar dou gig with him tomorrow :) )


My point is, it's highly unlikely a person without a firm grasp
of musical theory would even choose some of these notes, much less exploit them to their full potential of tension and release

( I tried to embed the movie here, but no-go, you will have to click the link )


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMIHXTf460

[Dubnick]

I should also point out that when I started learning the craft there was nobody around to help and few, if any, decent books on the subject. Much of what I learned was from turning the knobs until things sounded right... same with placing and moving mics...


.And no doubt you observed the cause and effect relationships of those choices made, or else you would have simply continued to apply the same behavior indescriminately regardless of context to every subsequent project. Also no doubt you stored these observations in your exceptional memory bank, right? Sounds suspiciously similar to the emperical discipline that is music theory. I really do think dwoz nailed what music theory really is and why it is sort of baffling that anyone like CP would be so vehemently against it. After all, how far would any human life get without attempting to retain and understand the information gathered from observation, experimentation and experience? It's one of our strongest tools for survival. I can only speak for myself, but I guess I just don't understand how one position themselves against utilizing that toolset in any aspect of life.

[Aardvark]

My point is, it's highly unlikely a person without a firm grasp of musical theory would even choose some of these notes, much less exploit them to their full potential of tension and release...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMIHXTf460

And my point is that some kid who has never had a music lesson in his life can go to youtube, cop this guys chops and soon be playing and exploiting those same notes as part of his own repertoire. He may work within the dogma of theory but he actually knows squat about it.


Man has been handing down sophisticated musical ideas by hand, ear and eye for thousands of years... well before the advent of theory. Ask any African drummer.



Cheers,
Aardvark




P.S. Good way to get a plug for the gig in Dude!!:lol::lol::Wink:
.

[otek]

No, you don't study theory to understand bends and vibrato, you hear that. You study to challenge what you hear and from that hopefully hear more.

:Thumbsup: :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup:

[Dubnick]

Hell, I can't get a decent mix in Logic so yes!:lol::lol:.Really? I actually have come to quite enjoy mixing in Logic, since I don't have an HD system at home (I would choose to mix in PT HD hands down if the choice is available though). Now editing drums in Logic as efficiently as is possible in PT? That's something I can't haven't had much luck with :lol: . Thankfully I've kept PT LE around.

[otek]

And my point is that some kid who has never had a music lesson in his life can go to youtube, cop this guys chops and soon be playing and exploiting those same notes as part of his own repertoire. He may work within the dogma of theory but he actually knows squat about it.

Man has been handing down sophisticated musical ideas by hand, ear and eye for thousands of years... well before the advent of theory. Ask any African drummer.


I think this is part of the point I've been trying to make. Theory doesn't have to be a bunch of books with chord diagrams in them. All these supposedly "un-schooled" players that were mentioned - whether someone showed it to them or they got it from a book of a record, they got their theory somehow.

Musicians like Allan Holdsworth, Ornette Coleman and Art Tatum devised their own systems for theory, which was based on standard "western" terminology but sometimes contains radical new approaches.

Indian classical teaching doesn't rely heavily on books, nor does West African Kora music. The theory has been there for better than 500 years, but it's passed on orally.

The Brazilian Samba has I believe forty or so different rhythmic styles. South American players I've recorded generally can't tell me what a 16th-note is, but they will definitely let you know if you are stylistically inapropriate. That's theory too, any way you slice it.


otek

[Jasco]

And my point is that some kid who has never had a music lesson in his life can go to youtube, cop this guys chops and soon be playing and exploiting those same notes as part of his own repertoire. He may work within the dogma of theory but he actually knows squat about it.



True. But I'd venture a guess that said kid copping the licks might without some theory knowledge might have a tough time trying to apply them in the correct context on other tunes.





Thanks for posting the video clip link Archtop. Sounds like a fun gig you've got coming up.

[Aardvark]

And no doubt you observed the cause and effect relationships of those choices made, or else you would have simply continued to apply the same behavior indescriminately regardless of context to every subsequent project. Also no doubt you stored these observations in your exceptional memory bank, right? Sounds suspiciously similar to the emperical discipline that is music theory.

I need Millard to explain Ohm's Law to me I am so hopeless in that area. :icon_eek:

You don't need to know how a combustion engine works to drive a car. Driving a car does not by that very action teach you about how a combustion engine works and the related theories.

I think I disagree with you and Dwoz in, and correct me if I am wrong, saying that the act of doing something musical that can be described within the theory is proof of knowing the theory.

I can make a nice sounding record from the ground up but I don't know Ohm's Law and have learned little to nothing about how most of the hundreds of pieces of recording kit I have owned has actually worked from a technical perspective.

I would fail any written exam on the subject of moving electrons and their manipulation by means of the tools I have used.

I would fail any exam on music theory badly. The fact that I can communicate musically in a manner that might be perceived as sophisticated and knowledgeable by those who know their theory does not qualify me as knowing it.

Example:

I learned to memorise multiplication tables well before I knew how to add, subtract or multiply. I listened to my older sister practicing them and bingo... my first grade teacher thought I was a math wiz.

Wrong. I had a very useful memory for what my ears collected.

Another example could be the simple first-class lever. Folks have been using long sticks and such to move heavy objects forever. Did they know the theory of Archemedean Principles related to leverage?

No. Even if they used them.



...it is sort of baffling that anyone like CP would be so vehemently against it.I agree. To know is to grow.


Cheers,
Aardvark


.

[Aardvark]

...South American players I've recorded generally can't tell me what a 16th-note is, but they will definitely let you know if you are stylistically inapropriate. That's theory too, any way you slice it.

Well, I call that practice... not theory. They know from practical experience what is or is not appropriate. They have not learned the theory of why it is not appropriate.

As for gravity... who the hell can actually explain me the theory behind it?:lol::lol::lol:


Cheers,
PedanticVArk


.

[bbkong]

HAHA~!

The thread that just keeps on giving!

Dubnick, I am your father. Come home.

Dwoz, spot on the money. If you don't know the language, how can you stay in the conversation?

Shottie, I've never seen anyone so good at slaying an ass with its' own jawbone. Proud to know ya.

Aardie, bullshit. You do know theory. You're also conversant in French and you never took a lesson in that either. Learning by absorption is what we're talking about here, but the Pig keeps wanting to reinvent the language and call the root the brown note. He further states that he knows plenty enough as it is, thereby infering he has no desire to get any better, cuz dood, I'm as good as I get!
Penultimate wankery.

Couple pages back the Pig also stated that sometimes complete silence can be musical too, and judging from his last Cape performance, he is most definitely a master at that skill.

I finally did listen to his wanky little clip and have to agree with Shottie. Get the fuck off my stage and go back to Mel Bay where the water is only an inch deep. You missed something big when you came through there.

And no, I'm not putting up any clips of my shit to satisfy your urge to take it out to the parking lot, you fuckin hillbilly. There's plenty of my work laying around these parts if you're familiar with the search function. Knock yerself out. I'll tell ya right now you won't find any self serving masturbation clips.



NOW I'm ready for my carnitas con huevos, por favor.

Oh, Rosalita!





Addendum:


While I'm wiping my dick on the Pig's mom's curtains, let's, just for a moment, and humor me if you can, substitute the word 'language' for that scary 'theory' word.

In my view it's a bit of a misnomer anyway. What we're really dancing around is the language of music and whether knowing any language helps in communicating with people who speak it.


Well, duh.

[Unfcknblvbl]

This thread needs to re-reamed...uh, re-named.

Anyway, the whole "theory(and/or technique) vs. feel" discussion is as old as the hills.
Would Keith Richards be a better songwriter if he knew what the hell he was doing?
Would Yngwie "Don't Like Donuts" have any credibility if he played slightly out of tune and ditched his more-is-more bullshit?

I don't know.

In my mind, good music is good music and I don't care if they know what the fuck they're doing.
I've chosen to study theory to give me more options when I play. I hope that doesn't mean I've lost any "feel" by doing so.

I'll shut up now. Carry on...

[Aardvark]

The Inuit people of Northern Canada have been building Igloos for a long, long time. Bucky Fuller knew his theory. Do they speak the same language?

I suggest that few Inuit boys who learned to build Igloos from their fathers ever learned the theory behind such a structure... theirs is a practical application learned from example. Could a clever young man deduce aspects of the theories by observing the nature of the structure?

Of course.

Did many?

Very doubtful.

Were block arches designed because the theories involved were evoked or did some stone-masons figure it out through trial and error?

Could ancient stone-masons discuss the theories behind their work?

I suggest very, very few.


You can learn to work/play/create within the boundaries of musical theory without knowing musical theory. You can learn to build a cabin without knowing about load displacements.

When a structural engineer asks you about the roof angle you can say I copied what the guy next door did... he is an architect. This copying of the roof design does not indicate you know anything about the theories involved, only that you can copy something effectively.



Cheers,
ThickasabrickVark



.

[bbkong]

The Inuit people of Northern Canada have been building Igloos for a long, long time. Bucky Fuller knew his theory. Do they speak the same language?



AHA!

Slowly, step by step we creep up on consensus!

Of course they do!


Would Keith Richards be a better songwriter if he knew what the hell he was doing?


Ah, my smudged globs of earthworm goo, of course he knows what he's doing! He learned how to dribble 3 chords just so and made millions of dollars playing behind The Lips, so why would he need to learn anything more of the language of music? Of those 3 chords he knows all! He is a God! On those 3 chords.

What of loftier ideas would he possibly be interested in exploring? None, I'd say. Ask Chick Corea if he's ever called up Keith to jam. It'd be like reading bawdy limericks at a Shakespeare festival.

And while I would happily bed down in a single story Inuit block hut for the night, no fuckin way are they designing my 10 story building.


So we aren't really talking about a theory, we're talking about a level of understanding that at some point needs a language of its own. Without arming oneself with that language, you place an artificial (dare I say stupid) barrier to your own understanding of a fascinating world of unlimited possibilities.


And now I shall drink to the stupid people, without whom we would starve to death if not for their inherent love of those 3 simple chords, and the Saturday night Heroes who deliver them up so well.

Just don't forget that Monday morning when the buzz wears off, you're still a 3 chord hack with no better ideas cuz U kant speek da langwidge vary gud.




Yet another addendum:

The so called Nashville chart (misappropriated by that town) IS music theory in shorthand, dumbed down for the slow and simplified to the extreme so even guitar players can understand it.

[Dubnick]

Would Yngwie "Don't Like Donuts" Way to work in a reference to a semi-obscure Pantera home video! Niiiiice.

[Cosmic Pig]

You guys slay me. I'm not vehently against it. What I said was playing out is better education than learning theory.

The youtube clip is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to play like that guy with no soul and a shitload of fancy licks then learn theory. The guy is good at that stuff and I don't mean to shoot at the dude, but I have to because all you fuckers are to chickenshit scared to put up your own stuff, because you're too busy trying to lay the boots to me to open your ears to what I'm saying.


I'm only talking about those of you who are just here to jack off on my bleeding corpse. Some of you guys get what I'm on about and some are trying, and some, myself included, are just having fun in the mosh pit and trying to pose your way out.

The guy in the clip used no tones at all beyond his unfortunate choice of the badly simulated fast rotor. Everything was picked in one way... oh wait he did a sweep once. Thats what I think of as a scale player. Ya sure Stevie used the rotor but whatever man, use some imagination.

There's a whole world of sound out there where some of you fear to tread. You're missing half the picture if you think theory is all. Sure I get its a language of music and all that, ya bet its something you need to learn if you want to be an all round total player, but if you think theory is the all-round-explains-it-all everything you really should take your bag of theory and hit some jams. See how far you get.

I've been around long enough to know when I run across bullshit artists posing as musicians. My chops have been insulted in some very imaginative and entertaining ways, but I know I'm not that bad. I can hold my own on most blues or rock stages, I can't even fling a pick at jazz or classical or shred. I know where I suck and where I don't. My point is advanced knowledge will not ever give you the skills to hang on most stages, study of tone will.

I'm sticking to my original statement because none of you assholes will put up a sample, and the bottom line is wtf does it sound like. Theorize til you puke you're still hacks spouting off about how great you are until you can point at something and say "this is what I did with theory".

Most of you don't have an inkling of my point and never will, and like many players who don't get it you're doomed to ride the ego while people leave bored stupid. The biggest difference between some of you and myself is you don't know what you suck at which come from posing and riding a bloated ego. Its not easy to admit when you're really bad at something you profess to be an expert in.

Blah blah blah rave bitch complain....

Ya know, it takes rather large nuts to do put up a sample and let retards jack off on it. Not many can walk away intact. It just occurred to me maybe the reason nobody will put anything up is because I'm the best player in this thread. Now thats a scary thought. I'm not even that good and I smoke all you theoretical fags.

Cos.

[Cosmic Pig]

"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,

There is a rapture on the lonely shore,

There is society, where none intrudes,

by the deep sea, and music in its roar.

I love not man the less, but nature more..."

Lord Byron gets me.

Cos.

[kasta]

It was a cold, wintry night and the Guru called upon his Disciple and said: "If you choose to build an Igloo and live in it, you will directly understand not only wind and warmth but also the sky and the stars. If you choose a 10-storey building instead, you will learn the tensile strength of palladium and such. Which too is good. Remember to choose according your nature and circumstance. Follow no trends. Trust no one else. Ignore the superior airs of the 10-storey dwellers who insist or imply theirs is the only way and because they are taller, they are somehow better.

"You will often find sound ideas of the universe from simpler creatures like a cosmic pig or an aardvark. But know that a cosmic pig, in its brashness, can sometimes excessively lash out and secede not only its central strategic position but acres of surrounding fertile plains as well. It does not mean it doesn't have a case.

"Ask me not how I know all this. Refrain from requesting me to post a jpg of any building I may have built."

The Guru walked away into the night; went on to win the undivided attention of a senior wikipedia editor after firmly stepping on his balls; and got him to abolish the word 'geodesic' for a long time to come - till such time that people truly understood, with respect, effort and patience what a beautiful thing an Igloo really is before hurrying on to 'greater' things.

On the way home, he was accosted by real estate developers who said he was standing in the way of progress and shot him dead. But that is a different story.

[Dubnick]

You guys slay me. I'm not vehently against it. What I said was playing out is better education than learning theory.

The youtube clip is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to play like that guy with no soul and a shitload of fancy licks then learn theory. The guy is good at that stuff and I don't mean to shoot at the dude, but I have to because all you fuckers are to chickenshit scared to put up your own stuff, because you're too busy trying to lay the boots to me to open your ears to what I'm saying.


I'm only talking about those of you who are just here to jack off on my bleeding corpse. Some of you guys get what I'm on about and some are trying, and some, myself included, are just having fun in the mosh pit and trying to pose your way out.

The guy in the clip used no tones at all beyond his unfortunate choice of the badly simulated fast rotor. Everything was picked in one way... oh wait he did a sweep once. Thats what I think of as a scale player. Ya sure Stevie used the rotor but whatever man, use some imagination.

There's a whole world of sound out there where some of you fear to tread. You're missing half the picture if you think theory is all. Sure I get its a language of music and all that, ya bet its something you need to learn if you want to be an all round total player, but if you think theory is the all-round-explains-it-all everything you really should take your bag of theory and hit some jams. See how far you get.

I've been around long enough to know when I run across bullshit artists posing as musicians. My chops have been insulted in some very imaginative and entertaining ways, but I know I'm not that bad. I can hold my own on most blues or rock stages, I can't even fling a pick at jazz or classical or shred. I know where I suck and where I don't. My point is advanced knowledge will not ever give you the skills to hang on most stages, study of tone will.

I'm sticking to my original statement because none of you assholes will put up a sample, and the bottom line is wtf does it sound like. Theorize til you puke you're still hacks spouting off about how great you are until you can point at something and say "this is what I did with theory".

Most of you don't have an inkling of my point and never will, and like many players who don't get it you're doomed to ride the ego while people leave bored stupid. The biggest difference between some of you and myself is you don't know what you suck at which come from posing and riding a bloated ego. Its not easy to admit when you're really bad at something you profess to be an expert in.

Blah blah blah rave bitch complain....

Ya know, it takes rather large nuts to do put up a sample and let retards jack off on it. Not many can walk away intact. It just occurred to me maybe the reason nobody will put anything up is because I'm the best player in this thread. Now thats a scary thought. I'm not even that good and I smoke all you theoretical fags.

Cos.Did anyone on this thread ever actually say that theory is the be all end all of music? That would be as silly as someone directly equating the choice to learn and understand of music theory to being a player "with no soul and a shitload of fancy licks". As dwoz said, music theory is really an empirical discipline - note that no one here is arguing or even suggesting that the cart (theory) comes before the horse (music) - but to be so against the idea of retaining the knowledge gained with the experience of playing is totally absurd, and whether you get it or not, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST. Everytime you play a lick over a certain chord and note that a couple notes didn't work over said chord, retaining in your mind the ones that did, you are essentially learning theory. You might argue that this is not technically theory, but that would be like saying any language other than English isn't a language (A rose by any other name...). As Otek pointed out, there are many self-taught musicians who have developed their own take on theory over years of playing, and this may in fact help define their unique sound, but they are still using theory, whether or not they conciously do so. If someone calls out A7 to you, you know what chord they mean and, I should hope, even the notes involved, right? Well, my friend, you are, apperantly one of those theory using hacks - should you be ashamed? No one has argued that one must be a music theory wiz kid before one can be a decent player, but you continue to throw out there that somehow having an understanding of theory makes you a shitier player - there is no logic to this whatsoever. In fact, following this non-logic, one would have to conclude that anyone who bothers to learn anything from their playing experience is a shittier player for it, including yourself.

What would you call someone who refuses to retain knowledge from experience, observation and experimentation and dismisses out of hand anyone who does retain such wisdom and even seeks it out? What would you call someone who is firmly against learning to understand and speak even the very minimal amount of a language someone would need to survive safely in a country where that is the dominant language (I'm talking super minimal - like Stop, Warning, etc.). Look carefully at your own posts - this is what you're arguing. When you put it in a context outside of music, does the argument make any sense? No one is being dismissive of the idea that playing music is the first priority, but unless you are developmentally challenged, there is no way that a gradual understanding of music theory can not follow, regardless of whether one pursues it or even bothers to learn most of the associated nomenclature. I'm just baffled at how one can be against that.

[kasta]

The post-script is that when they searched his pockets, they found no money but a poem by the great WW. Not the great Weedy Wet, ye people of limited ken, but the great Walt Whitman. We publish in full here, because two poems in a day are better than one.

When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and
measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much
applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

[archtop]

You guys slay me. I'm not vehently against it. What I said was playing out is better education than learning theory.

The youtube clip is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to play like that guy with no soul and a shitload of fancy licks then learn theory. The guy is good at that stuff and I don't mean to shoot at the dude, but I have to because all you fuckers are to chickenshit scared to put up your own stuff, because you're too busy trying to lay the boots to me to open your ears to what I'm saying.


I'm only talking about those of you who are just here to jack off on my bleeding corpse. Some of you guys get what I'm on about and some are trying, and some, myself included, are just having fun in the mosh pit and trying to pose your way out.

The guy in the clip used no tones at all beyond his unfortunate choice of the badly simulated fast rotor. Everything was picked in one way... oh wait he did a sweep once. Thats what I think of as a scale player. Ya sure Stevie used the rotor but whatever man, use some imagination.

There's a whole world of sound out there where some of you fear to tread. You're missing half the picture if you think theory is all. Sure I get its a language of music and all that, ya bet its something you need to learn if you want to be an all round total player, but if you think theory is the all-round-explains-it-all everything you really should take your bag of theory and hit some jams. See how far you get.

I've been around long enough to know when I run across bullshit artists posing as musicians. My chops have been insulted in some very imaginative and entertaining ways, but I know I'm not that bad. I can hold my own on most blues or rock stages, I can't even fling a pick at jazz or classical or shred. I know where I suck and where I don't. My point is advanced knowledge will not ever give you the skills to hang on most stages, study of tone will.

I'm sticking to my original statement because none of you assholes will put up a sample, and the bottom line is wtf does it sound like. Theorize til you puke you're still hacks spouting off about how great you are until you can point at something and say "this is what I did with theory".

Most of you don't have an inkling of my point and never will, and like many players who don't get it you're doomed to ride the ego while people leave bored stupid. The biggest difference between some of you and myself is you don't know what you suck at which come from posing and riding a bloated ego. Its not easy to admit when you're really bad at something you profess to be an expert in.

Blah blah blah rave bitch complain....

Ya know, it takes rather large nuts to do put up a sample and let retards jack off on it. Not many can walk away intact. It just occurred to me maybe the reason nobody will put anything up is because I'm the best player in this thread. Now thats a scary thought. I'm not even that good and I smoke all you theoretical fags.

Cos.

Cos, dude.


Your there tryin' to pose your way outta the mosh pit,
but your bleading near death corpse is covered in blood and seman and you need some medical attention. :)

We are all here tryin to carry you to the ambulance, and you keep runnin away screamin' "Fuck you commies, you aint gettin' MY pocket knife".

Dude we really are tryin' to help.


But those windmill wild man swings make it hard to get near you, your punchin' out everybody, kids, gramdmas, puppies.

Then you bag on Tim Lerch.

Bro, that hurt ya, that hurt ya real bad.

Mozart probably sucked to you too.

Shug, you know I think your real swell, fun to read.



but man your off you freakin' rocker sometimes

you said:

I can't even fling a pick at jazz or classical or shred. I know where I suck and where I don't. My point is advanced knowledge will not ever give you the skills to hang on most stages, study of tone will.

You are making OUR points for us :)

your hoop/net is the other direction.



I'll give you ten minutes to go watch/study the vid again, then come back and apologize.



We are in the middle of the virtual version of ther guitar
player light bulb joke.

10. One to change the light bulb, and nine to say
I coulda done it better and faster.

[dwoz]

Again, one of the real problems here in our pleadings with Cosmic Pig, is that he's SPEAKING A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

I saw this once, over in the old usenet rec.music.theory group...there was this old guy there, named Albert Silverman, who used to inject himself into every conversation and declare that everyone was WRONG WRONG WRONG. They didn't know what they were talking about, they were idiots.

HE had devised his own system of music theory, that was applicable for a very very narrow range of musical genre...specifically 30's and 40's theatrical show music, and he used a lot of the same terminology that "regular" functional harmony uses, but REDEFINED them to mean something else in his system.

Of course, the guy was a lunatic. A lucid lunatic, but a lunatic nonetheless.

Now, what got the rest of the community giggling was not that the guy tried to invent his own music theory...far from it, we all applaud that kind of exercise...it was that it was a USELESS theory, especially because it didn't apply to the vast sweeping mass of music, only to a very tiny sliver...and even there, it did nothing to illuminate what was going on in a usable fashion.

I think that's part of what's happening here....coz has made up some words, "tone" and "scale" that mean something uniquely personal, not anything resembling what they mean to everyone else, and is surprised when we find his statements to be nonsensical.

dwoz

[HOOK]

Theory is the map that tells you how to get where you want to go; you still have got to use your feet to actually go there!

A great musician excels in both theory and playing skills.

(among other things!)


HOOK

[bbkong]

You guys slay me. I'm not vehently against it. What I said was playing out is better education than learning theory.

And what most everyone else is saying is that both are important and go hand in hand.

but I have to because all you fuckers are to chickenshit scared to put up your own stuff

Again, that proves nothing beside which grade of school you're stuck in.

I'm only talking about those of you who are just here to jack off on my bleeding corpse...

which is oozing from self inflicted wounds...




I've been around long enough to know when I run across bullshit artists posing as musicians. My chops have been insulted in some very imaginative and entertaining ways, but I know I'm not that bad.

No, you really aren't that bad, but you've hit a plateau in your playing and it's time to do a little studying and challenge yourself with something difficult so you can keep growing.

..study of tone will...

Would it be too much trouble to use the definition of 'tone' that the rest of the planet uses? Feel free to go search out a word that actually means whatever the fuck you're on about or even invent a new one, but stop stealing words and using them for hats.


Blah blah blah rave bitch complain....
It just occurred to me maybe the reason nobody will put anything up is because I'm the best player in this thread.

coffee->nose->keyboard.

rotl


Haha! You lose! You got pissed in an internet debate.

[dikledoux]

EVERY good player knows theory.
Thank you. They may not have a thorough knowledge of it or be able to communicate it concisely, but they know it.

And Dubnick had a gem that really struck me. He was explaining the dominant 7 and described it as "...the itch that the tonic or I chord scratches." I'm completely sure that the Pig gets this point. So HE knows some theory as well, at least to some extent. I'm guessing that the Pig is concerned that spending time learning all the technical details will stunt his feel.

But the reality is that the best players spend so much more time with their instrument(s) that they master all the intricate technical details AND they spend time just playing around aimlessly to develop their own voice. These people spend more time on either end of the spectrum than many of us spend in either end of the pool.

And the result of them doing this is that, when it's time to perform, they don't rifle through all the technotes and decide which one maps to the situation and then apply the right rule. They just know. Same reason drummers do the tedious exercises to build speed, strength, time, independence. They don't think through "if I play this fartadiddle EXACTLY here, that'll be 5 eighth notes and that gets me to the and of the 4 so I can REALLLLLY lay into the fill going into chorus #2 in order to contrast the triplet thing I did going into chorus #1..."

It just happens.

You can speak English without studying grammar, and get most of your day-to-day points across just fine. You don't have to think about whether or not you've included a noun and a verb. It just happens. But if you need to convey a more complex or nuanced thought, your knowledge of the language and grammar helps you get the point across with precision without the need to go to the thesaurus or dictionary.

dik

[Cosmic Pig]

Haha... Naw I'm not pissed, just raving and trying to keep up with the tone of a few of the more insulting posters.

I hear what you guys are saying and I'm not saying you're wrong exactly. The plateau BB mentioned in my playing is what I'm talking about. I may have reached a plateau of knowledge and I agree I could use more. But I have yet to reach a plateau of tone, and that study is where my playing has been growing most in the last few years. See the point is tone, or my version of it which means the sound created, is a larger part of music than theory. For many players scale is, which is a more advanced knwledge of the fretvoard including theory. Case in point, I didn't like the dude in the clip, but lots do, and should, he's good at what he does.

I actually don't mean to keep coming out so squarely against theory, it just works out that way as I stomp around blasting at anything that moves.

In my producing chops there's been only once where I wished I could speak the language rather than flail my arms about yelling soar and majestic. That was with the last cape. I've seen guys who know the language get pretty frustrated with guys who don't when trying to communicate. The people I work with in the studio and on stage don't know theory, and for me figuring out how to communicate with soar and gesticulating frantically is better than getting frustrated and pissed off that nobody understands what I'm saying when I speak the language properly.

What Archtop said illustrates somethingerother,

you said:

I can't even fling a pick at jazz or classical or shred. I know where I suck and where I don't. My point is advanced knowledge will not ever give you the skills to hang on most stages, study of tone will.

You are making OUR points for us

your hoop/net is the other direction.


There's the thing, my hoop is not in the other direction. I don't want to play jazz or classical or shred. A few years back it started dawning on me to explore my strength in my style rather than try to bring up my weak areas. It was an epiphany in my playing. Forcing myself to say something in a small box has improved my playing more than working on finding a new way to say nothing. If I was more coordinated and dedicated I might have found myself going the scale route, but its not me.

all that being said, for the first ten years you probably should learn the rules well and not worry about tone. You have to know the rules before you can explore the sounds created by the rules.

Wish I had more time for posting but I gots shit to do.

Kasta you rock.

So to sum up, the sound is more important than the rule, and God is in the sound, not the language. Some players lean towards the rules and some to the sound.

And yeah Dubnick I get that I'm using theory when I play, but not entirely. In the second example, the tone one, riding the whammy bar so low it's whapping off the pickups is not using theory at all.

Gotta go.

Cos.

[HOOK]

You can speak English without studying grammar, and get most of your day-to-day points across just fine. You don't have to think about whether or not you've included a noun and a verb. It just happens. But if you need to convey a more complex or nuanced thought, your knowledge of the language and grammar helps you get the point across with precision without the need to go to the thesaurus or dictionary.

Thank you!

That is exactly what I´m up against every time I want to write something that is not as simple as black and/or white.
Can we redo this whole discussion in Swedish, please!?! :Wink:




HOOK

[vocalnick]

Sounds good to me. I don't speak a word of Swedish, but this thread couldn't possible make any less sense no matter what we do to it :Razz:

[otek]

this thread couldn't possible make any less sense no matter what we do to it :Razz:

There does come a point where you realize there's no use discussing further.

Like dwoz put it - different languages.


otek

[dwoz]

ok, I get it now...when he says "TONE" he means..."playing long drawn out chord tones as ambient filler".

dwoz

[Dubnick]

In my producing chops there's been only once where I wished I could speak the language rather than flail my arms about yelling soar and majestic... The people I work with in the studio and on stage don't know theory, and for me figuring out how to communicate with soar and gesticulating frantically is better than getting frustrated and pissed off that nobody understands what I'm saying when I speak the language properly.Holy shit, the way you're describing your way of communicating in the studio, I would totally pay money to watch that shit:lol: . Why do I get the feeling that footage of you producing an artist in the studio might be funnier than Spinal Tap, Tenacious D, The Office and that scene in Boogie Nights combined? I have to see the look on an artist's face when you're "yelling soar and majestic".


In the second example, the tone one, riding the whammy bar so low it's whapping off the pickups is not using theory at all.True, although Freud might have had some theories on why you find doing that so appealing (I kid, I kid:lol: )

[bbkong]

In the second example, the tone one, riding the whammy bar so low it's whapping off the pickups is not using theory at all.





Actually, in theory terms that move is known as a flatulatte.


This is starting to remind me of that perpetual joke about how to make a guitar player turn down: put sheet music in front of him.

[eagan]

We need a pie break.


JLE

[archtop]

Well in case you guys care, my gig with Tim Lerch went fucking great, we killed, his massive theory knowledge made me look so good, I am so stoked, probably one of my greater gigs ever, just two guitars, with zero rehearsal,doin' jazz standards, I even did O.K. on the few that I had to sight read on.

I doubt a "feel/tone" player would even been able to
keep up, (lotta b9, #5 chords) much less, make the other shine.

look at my chest, it's all pumped up.


who's got pie?

[Cosmic Pig]

I hate pi.

Either I'm a genius or an idiot. AE's spend their days disconnected from the player, yet working with tone. Maybe its just so fucking obvious to you guys... in which case I'm an idiot, or maybe you don't see how the player creates the sound beyond what scale or chord is used. Then you'll see I'm actually a genius.

However, soon as I can get to it I"ll give y'all a cosmic guitar lesson with an mp3. In it I'll explain how tone starts at the fingers and works it's way through to the mic and mixing. Not once will theory be used, except for the scale which will be four notes.... ish.

Maybe tomorrow.

Cos.

[kasta]

"Even though the whole universe may rise against it, a cosmic pig never gives up." Old jungle saying :D

[HOOK]

In it I'll explain how tone starts at the fingers and works it's way through to the mic and mixing. Not once will theory be used, except for the scale which will be four notes.... ish.

Nota bene: tone starts at the fingers and works it's way through to the mic and mixing This is theory! I´m not doing it my self and I´m not hearing you play! You are describing it to me, thus theorizing!
If I memorize this chances are that I actually try to do it the next time I try to play guitar. It will help me achieve my goals if my goals is to "hear the tone of my fingers through the mix" Theory is helping me become a better musician; if it is a good tip that is!! :Wink:
As soon as you are describing anything musical to anyone (including yourself) you are using theory.

Now live with it!



HOOK

[dwoz]

Now live with it!



HOOK



He's a pig...he's got to WALLOW in it!


dwoz

[Cosmic Pig]

Kay then, quick question, does theory cover the 10+ different ways to pick a string?

I believe it covers everything the fretting hand does such as vibrato and bends etc. but not so much the picking hand, correct?

Cos.

[HOOK]

Read my lips: I am not a cr..err I mean:


If you describe it it is theory. If you do it its not.




HOOK

[gitarted]

Kay then, quick question, does theory cover the 10+ different ways to pick a string?


I would call that technique.

[Cosmic Pig]

Heh... now who's adjusting definitions to meet their own criteria? My earlier questions still stands. Dubnick you teach it, so does theory cover the different ways to pick a string, and can the different ways be read off a staff?

The question here is what is the question?

Before I get carried away giving you guys guitar lessons I'd like to know what you guys are trying to point out to me. I already admitted I use theory whether I know the terms and rules or not.

The point I'm blathering about may not be the point your blathering about.

Do you guys see what I'm talking about separating tone from scale? Do you get why I keep saying time spent playing out is better than time spent learning more advanced things like theory and reading?

Some of you get that and some refuse to budge on it, hence the blather.

Is anyone interested in this mp3 guitar lesson that will hopefully demonstrate what I'm on about? If not I won't waste my time.

Cos.

[Cosmic Pig]

Ahhh thanks Gitarted. Maybe thats where I screwed myself. So then, slight adjustment to my definitions of tone and scale, technique is part of tone.

Cos.

[Shotgun]

Heh... now who's adjusting definitions to meet their own criteria? My earlier questions still stands. Dubnick you teach it, so does theory cover the different ways to pick a string, and can the different ways be read off a staff?


Yes. "Music Theory" has "rules" that cover plectrum technique (and even plectrum material) and you can notate that on guitar sheet music. I think they usually use little carats (^ and v) and some other symbols I can't make on my keyboard to denote picking styles and directions. Additionally, music theory isn't defined as "things that can only be written onto a score sheet". In fact, score sheets are open to lots of interpretation based ON theory.




The question here is what is the question?

I'd say my primary question now is why are you so goddamn retarded that you can't see the nose on your own face?



Before I get carried away giving you guys guitar lessons I'd like to know what you guys are trying to point out to me. I already admitted I use theory whether I know the terms and rules or not.

I, for one, am wholly uninterested in any "guitar lessons". The fact that you don't understand why they won't prove (OR disprove) your point leads me to believe you're just kinda hard in the dick about people listening to you play no matter what the reaction. Very guitar-y of you.


The point I'm blathering about may not be the point your blathering about.

Do you guys see what I'm talking about separating tone from scale? Do you get why I keep saying time spent playing out is better than time spent learning more advanced things like theory and reading?

I've seen what you THOUGHT you were talking about from the first fucking post. It's not rocket surgery, sparky. You have that "I taught myself to play" mentality about what the term "music theory" means and why it is "bad". But, unfortunately not only are you wrong about the first part, you're wrong about the second part. You'll possibly never see it, but that's the honest truth. Doesn't have a thing to do with your (or my) perception of your playing skill, it has to do with concepts and philosophies. Something you seem to have a difficult time, possibly even some embarrassment, accepting or facing.


Some of you get that and some refuse to budge on it, hence the blather.

The only times I refuse to budge are when I'm right. As soon as I get some evidence to my wrongness, I budge faster than Slipperman going for the last copy of "Navy Boyz II" in the gay section at the adult book store.



Is anyone interested in this mp3 guitar lesson that will hopefully demonstrate what I'm on about? If not I won't waste my time.

Cos.

Once again, no. Once again (iteration what...13 now?) it won't prove or disprove anything. We can sit here all day and tell you things wrong or right with it playing-wise, recording-wise, etc., ad. nasueum either using big words or small and it won't change your perspective.

Several guys have done a perfectly fine job trying to explain to you WHAT the term "music theory" encompasses. I don't have the energy to try and do any better and I probably couldn't.

Also, so as not to make Aardo feel ignored or anything, I fully agree with and support his upholding of the concept that one does not REQUIRE an academic study of music theory to be an accomplished player, producer, recorder or documenter of music. In fact, few pursuits require that at the danger of guaranteed failure. I would offer the practice of medicine as one that does.

I will, though, give you an example of the practical application of theory drawn from your own anecdote regarding the waving of arms and the use of terms like majestic and soar in hopes that one final attempt will allow you to stop smelling your own colon and come out into the light.

So, as you "produce" an artist in your "studio", and you've noticed a change that the artist should make in their performance you begin to wave your arms and use emotionally charged or hyperbolic terms to convey the message of what you suspect you want to hear. Well, the gesticulations notwithstanding, your use of "majestic" might be perfectly justified. In fact, I'm sure you feel quite smug and "artistic" in your machinations and feel instantly thankful that you have no pesky music theory education getting in the way of you and this artist connecting on the true art that is being created in the room, n'est pas?

And I'm sure that you figure if you DID have such an education, instead of saying "d00d! You gotta make that SOLO soar up to the point of being majestic man...it's gotta FLY!!!" that you'd come out with some drivel like, "well, clearly you're playing an Ionian solo here my good chap but to truly capture the spirit of the piece I think you should modulate to a Mixolydian mode over the same chord sequence."

And clearly that's bullshit. If you read that and went "wow, Shotgun finally gets what I'm saying!" then YOU don't get what WE'RE saying. Here's what music theory allows you to do as a true producer:

Producer thinking:
(Ok, these cats are playing the lead break over the key of G maj. It's kinda sounding wankish to me...lemme think a minute, ya, ok...)

Producer talking:
"Hey man, sounds good. Mixerman, arm a second track there [smacks Mixerman in the adam's apple for group joviality], and just for giggles, try playing your lead in D, ok?. Um, yeah...just start here on this fret and do the same type of patterns. Yeah, jump up to here [points] maybe for that second part."

Now, did knowing the D might sound good over G in the imaginary song REQUIRE music theory? Nah. But it helped perhaps. Or might have been HOW the guy came at the idea. But he didn't babble a bunch of Mixomanian jargon at the player, he was able to effectively communicate an idea he had from a theory point of view into a practical playing application. And that, my friend, is what (one of) the true jobs of a REAL producer are: to know what is REALLY going on and be able to speak to the engineer, the artist, and, if applicable the label, the mastering engineer, the studio staff, the assistants and possibly even the press--none of whom have the full picture in mind, usually--in words that each group understands innately.

That ability requires a personal knowledge base that is quite extensive and could or could NOT come wholly or in part from a formal education in music theory. Additionally it could come from practical observation and/or interaction with other musicians, engineers, mooks, assistants and et cetera. It could also come from a combination of those two, or something completely unlike either.

So, when you say that your thesis is that it is much more beneficial to "go out and play" (where you do not state) rather than "sit down and learn that crap" or whatever you called it--no, you are wrong. It is not better. Nor is it worse. It is different, sure, but it is neither good nor bad in its existence, only in its application or lack thereof. That is, a formal education is useless if you don't apply it somewhere later.

What you also fail to see is that, just like someone astutely pointed out, you're just a guy who exists in a very limited world of ONE SINGLE type of musical expression and it would just be simply polite of you to recognize the very limited nature of what you even THINK you're trying to "teach" us and stop thinking that you've come up with some amazing universal truth. To answer another of your questions: you're neither a genius NOR an idiot. You're just a dude who plays guitar and records some local cats when he can and thinks he's a whole lot more tuned in than he really is. In short, the Rock said it best when he spake, "Shut your mouth and know your role".


The last I'll ever say on this subject barring amazing developments,
Shotty



PS--
While thinking about this response I was doing some reading and came across this document (http://www.monarchknights.com/teacherwebpages/halladay/documents/BasicMusicTheory1ed_000.pdf). Why don't you show us what kind of "balls" you REALLY have and download that and read the entire thing. Then, over the next few weeks/months, however often you work, see if anything you learn from it can be applied to a session you're a part of. If, after several sessions you can find nothing, then fine--formal music theory is of no use TO YOU. If you do find something useful, come back and thank us by swoggling our balls. But again, please realize the limited nature of where you really swim in either case.

~~S

[Cosmic Pig]

Jeez Shottgun if you spent near as much time on explaining your points as you did on trying to come up with new and more imaginative ways to dig the insults deeper you might actually be worth listening to.

Your producer scenario says nothing, and is, dare I say it, stupid. If the guy can't move up the neck to different positions he probably won't be able to move the root notes in the scale either and it'll still sound like shit. If I have to give guitar lessons to get through the session it'll be shit no matter what I do. In which case I'd probably let the guy stick to what he knows and hope for some kind of quality in the performance. If he can't move up the neck on his own then soar ain't gonna happen no matter how much I flail or theorize.

Where we differ and where the scrap begins is at my statement that playing out, as in on stage, is better than learning theory. Putting a handful of scales to work in a practical situation will make you a better player. And that somewhat depends on what type of player you want to be.

The other thing that got the ball rolling is when I said Beck is a tone player. He doesn't use theory on many aspects of his playing.

Now let me see if I got what you're saying in my tiny inferior brain. I use theory all the time and its good to learn? Music is theory? I get all that and have said before I don't disagree. What I'm talking about is the value of knowledge that became obsolete with the invention of electricity. What I'm saying is there is a world of tone out there that isn't covered by traditional theory, and the study of that tone is more important to one's playing than learning why and how one chord works with another.

You're just a dude who plays guitar and records some local cats when he can and thinks he's a whole lot more tuned in than he really is. In short, the Rock said it best when he spake, "Shut your mouth and know your role".

How can you say that without coming across like a bullshit poser your own self? If you think going through that pdf will somehow tune me in you're mistaken. If skills equaled success I might be further along than I am now, but to be honest I have no idea whether I'm a good producer or not. And I asure you I wouldn't go by your evaluation because I have no respect for your opinion, and you have no idea what I've done or what I have to work with. You apparently base my skill level on whether I know theory or not, and thats just goofy.

In short, fuck off asshole. You're a chickenshit troll with no talent or samples in either playing or producing to back up any of your words.

Ahhh I love this. wheeee!

But really, I appreciate the pdf. I agree some understanding of theory is a good thing in both playing and producing.

Cos.

[bbkong]

Your producer scenario says nothing, and is, dare I say it, stupid. If the guy can't move up the neck to different positions he probably won't be able to move the root notes in the scale either and it'll still sound like shit. If I have to give guitar lessons to get through the session it'll be shit no matter what I do. In which case I'd probably let the guy stick to what he knows and hope for some kind of quality in the performance. If he can't move up the neck on his own then soar ain't gonna happen no matter how much I flail or theorize.

Bullshit. You completely missed his point.

Where we differ and where the scrap begins is at my statement that playing out, as in on stage, is better than learning theory. Putting a handful of scales to work in a practical situation will make you a better player. And that somewhat depends on what type of player you want to be.

Unrefined, repititous utter bullshit.

The other thing that got the ball rolling is when I said Beck is a tone player. He doesn't use theory on many aspects of his playing.

More bullshit.

Now let me see if I got what you're saying in my tiny inferior brain. I use theory all the time and its good to learn? Music is theory? I get all that and have said before I don't disagree. What I'm talking about is the value of knowledge that became obsolete with the invention of electricity. What I'm saying is there is a world of tone out there that isn't covered by traditional theory, and the study of that tone is more important to one's playing than learning why and how one chord works with another.

Felonious bullshit.



How can you say that without coming across like a bullshit poser your own self? If you think going through that pdf will somehow tune me in you're mistaken.

bull fucking shit.

If skills equaled success I might be further along than I am now, but to be honest I have no idea whether I'm a good producer or not. And I asure you I wouldn't go by your evaluation because I have no respect for your opinion, and you have no idea what I've done or what I have to work with. You apparently base my skill level on whether I know theory or not, and thats just goofy.

More like horse shit.



In short, fuck off asshole. You're a chickenshit troll with no talent or samples in either playing or producing to back up any of your words.

Pure fuckin junior high wankery.



But really, I appreciate the pdf. I agree some understanding of theory is a good thing in both playing and producing.


That's no pay off at all. Learn the pdf, it's a gift and you'll do it if you expect to be taken seriously in these parts.

IF you make it through that go pick up a Mickey Baker book and impress us with p3's of that, not some lead guitar spooge splatter.

Hunerd bucks says you'll die on page 2.


Oh, and that last post is living proof your reading comprehension skills are shit too. You don't really listen, do you?

[Cosmic Pig]

Lmao BB, The fact that you both missed my point IS my point.

These parts? What parts be that? The bullshit poser parts?

You guys should let me listen to something you've done either in producing or playing if you want to gain my respect, which you don't. So bite my fart bubble.

We're reduced to high school wankery here. I give up.

Cos.

[dwoz]

We're reduced to high school wankery here. I give up.

Cos.

REDUCED to it? Never managed to graduate from it, more like.


dwoz

[Shotgun]

Well ELL OH ELL! Who'd'a thunk this thread would end with nobody learning anything? This reduces my faith in the youth of today. And makes me like a good bacon sandwich even more. Thanks for the new sigline though.


~S

[Dubnick]

This reduces my faith in the youth of today.Is CP a young guy? I never really considered that possibility. If he is, it actually renews my faith in humanity a bit. I know when I was younger I said plenty of ignorant/arrogant things that, in retrospect, give me total douche-chills. Not that I've ever stopped making douche-chill inducing comments, it's just now I am usually semi-aware I am doing so.

[Jasco]

Do you get why I keep saying time spent playing out is better than time spent learning more advanced things like theory and reading?


Where we differ and where the scrap begins is at my statement that playing out, as in on stage, is better than learning theory.

The problem with this idea is twofold.

First, how much time can you actually play out? For example, I play out a lot less than I used to. Currently I do 3-4 four hour band gigs per week, mostly blues, and maybe 2 or 3 solo/duo acoustic gigs per month (classical/flamenco and jazz) that are an hour or two long. Assuming that I kept practicing during breaks, I'd get 12-16 hours of blues practice and 2 hours of classical and jazz practice per week from live gigs. Not nearly enough time each week to be a decent player. Therefore, I must put in a lot of extra training time during none gigging hours.

Secondly, while playing live teaches one certain things that can't be learned in practice mode, practice mode also teaches you things you can't learn in gig mode. You have more freedom to explore and apply new concepts, and you can repeat sections at slow tempos to perfect them, unlike live gig situations.

A third mode of playing - recording - will teach you things that neither gigging nor practicing will teach you. All three of these playing modes help reinforce each other. And you're not developing you full potential if you ignore one of these aspects of playing.

Putting a handful of scales to work in a practical situation will make you a better player

I would agree that knowing and being able to use a small bit of information very well is more useful than knowing a large bit of information not very well. However, at some point one might tire of repeating the first grade over again and again, and might wish to move on to new concepts. Through study while not gigging, one can get a second small bit of information and master it well enough to apply it to gigs. Then another bit of information. After a while one would have a large amount of information and ability at his or her command. This takes continual training efforts outside the gig environment though.

[bbkong]

Well ELL OH ELL! Who'd'a thunk this thread would end with nobody learning anything?

Oh, I think we've learned something alright.

[Cosmic Pig]

The problem with this idea is twofold.

First, how much time can you actually play out? For example, I play out a lot less than I used to. Currently I do 3-4 four hour band gigs per week, mostly blues, and maybe 2 or 3 solo/duo acoustic gigs per month (classical/flamenco and jazz) that are an hour or two long. Assuming that I kept practicing during breaks, I'd get 12-16 hours of blues practice and 2 hours of classical and jazz practice per week from live gigs. Not nearly enough time each week to be a decent player. Therefore, I must put in a lot of extra training time during none gigging hours.

Secondly, while playing live teaches one certain things that can't be learned in practice mode, practice mode also teaches you things you can't learn in gig mode. You have more freedom to explore and apply new concepts, and you can repeat sections at slow tempos to perfect them, unlike live gig situations.

A third mode of playing - recording - will teach you things that neither gigging nor practicing will teach you. All three of these playing modes help reinforce each other. And you're not developing you full potential if you ignore one of these aspects of playing.



I would agree that knowing and being able to use a small bit of information very well is more useful than knowing a large bit of information not very well. However, at some point one might tire of repeating the first grade over again and again, and might wish to move on to new concepts. Through study while not gigging, one can get a second small bit of information and master it well enough to apply it to gigs. Then another bit of information. After a while one would have a large amount of information and ability at his or her command. This takes continual training efforts outside the gig environment though.

That is exactly what I'm saying, and I'll gladly agree with you gigging might not be the same opportunity to hone your chops as it once was. I also agree with the second part, and add that it was the discovery of working the tone that gave me a large inspirational boost in my playing. Once I split playing into tone and scale a whole world opened up. As if I'd learned a new mode.

Btw fellas, I'm old. Me and my 19 year old kid are sitting here watching Monte... that guy kicks ass huge.

On the other end of the stick... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ40kVRvcdk&feature=email

Nice sig line Shotgun haha.

Cos.

[Unfcknblvbl]

Okay, I admit it - I'm confused with the arguments now.

Cos - Gigging is more important than studying theory/knowing tone is a separate...issue?... from knowing theory;
Shitgun/Bubba/Others (myself included) - knowing/studying theory is just the beginning, not the BE ALL END ALL so called "Feel" players make it out to be.

Herbie Hancock knows theory; Herbie Hancock, in my fucking opinion only, plays with emotion; these -and others - overlap into indistinguishable aspects of him being a Musician.

With respect to all involved parties, am I missing something?

Fuck it, I'll shut up and go post more album covers with naked women on them...

[bbkong]

Okay, I admit it - I'm confused with the arguments now.

Cos - Gigging is more important than studying theory/knowing tone is a separate...issue?... from knowing theory;
Shitgun/Bubba/Others (myself included) - knowing/studying theory is just the beginning, not the BE ALL END ALL so called "Feel" players make it out to be.



Allow me to recap, neighbor.

Cos indeed stated that gigging is more important than study.

Everyone else asserts that they are both equally important.

Then Cos reinvents the definitions of tone and scale and got his pecker stomped for doing it.

Then he challenged us all to post clips of ourselves to prove/disprove his point, which is about like relating dancing to architecture. Totally irrelevant.

Then in his last post he actually lets on that he agrees with us about gigging and studying being equally important, but he's still clinging to his definition of tone and scale which is what got him all the mud pies in the first place.

Now, since he does agree that gigging and study are equally important, maybe he can step off the stage long enough to learn that his definitions of scale and tone are so off the mark it makes people sling mud and get his rep and his musical footing evened out a bit and quit thinking that clip he posted is anything but dreck.

Or not.

Zat help?



And yes, I will stomp a catfish till it quits wiggling.

[Cosmic Pig]

Allow me to recap, neighbor.

Cos indeed stated that gigging is more important than study.

Everyone else asserts that they are both equally important.

Then Cos reinvents the definitions of tone and scale and got his pecker stomped for doing it.

Then he challenged us all to post clips of ourselves to prove/disprove his point, which is about like relating dancing to architecture. Totally irrelevant.

Then in his last post he actually lets on that he agrees with us about gigging and studying being equally important, but he's still clinging to his definition of tone and scale which is what got him all the mud pies in the first place.

Now, since he does agree that gigging and study are equally important, maybe he can step off the stage long enough to learn that his definitions of scale and tone are so off the mark it makes people sling mud and get his rep and his musical footing evened out a bit and quit thinking that clip he posted is anything but dreck.

Or not.

Zat help?



And yes, I will stomp a catfish till it quits wiggling.

Wiggle.

Artfully summated sans insults.

The clips were in fact dreck in many ways, my studio is gear shy, and my room is a buncha crap in a basement. My bass trap doubles as a washer dryer. The clips were done a ways back on the learning curve when I figured it was digital so it must mix itself. I still have a long way to go.

The reason I put them up was to show you what I mean by tone player. Not how great I am, which is really great. Don't much care what you or shottie think one way or the other. If I was famous you'd have your lips vacuum locked on my ass like you do with any other big name here.

But you guys are great. It's been fun and educational.

Kisses,

Cos.

[bbkong]

The reason I put them up was to show you what I mean by tone player. Not how great I am, which is really great.

I still don't get what you're talking about, and sorry, no.


If I was famous you'd have your lips vacuum locked on my ass like you do with any other big name here.

You really don't know me, do ya?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Aardvark]

Here's another relatively unknown cat that is pretty decent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI2pv9Myrjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW1yziWcb2M

He plays well but leaves me cold... he also cut his clip before the next cat's solo... Hello ego???


And then there is quiet, unassuming and vastly under-appreciated Ed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDHZkNXsJY)

Cos... check this out. We have a tremendous tone and feel as well as a biblical understanding of theory.

On a similar note... Don't you think Gaye Delorme (http://www.gayedelorme.com/) combines knowledge, taste, tone and talent in a way unimaginable if he was dismissive of theory?



Cheers,
WealsobroughtyouLennyBreau (http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?p=119827#post119827)VArk



.

[otek]

Lenny Breau


Another example that technique, feel, tone, scale, theory, practice and whatever other words we toss around mean nothing in and of themselves, but all come together under the wing of an astonishing musician. And all that without judgmental attitudes whatsoever.



otek


PS. Do check out another master not with us anymore, the late great Danny Gatton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyjtW-rvWoQ) (he even does the Lenny Breau patented "harp trick" at the end!)... :D

[dwoz]

Coz STILL hasn't given an actual definition of "tone" and "scale" as those words pertain to his world, in a way that isn't tautological.

In other words, saying "tone is when you play with TONE", doesn't mean anything and doesn't provide any additional illumination. So, I guess we'll never really know.

I shall go to my grave an uneducated man.

dwoz

[frnjplayer]

Music is language. Some things have a greater impact if said in a few simple words. Other topics require a bit more eloquence. If you understand the language and have a full vocabulary you have either option. When you only know five words you're conversation can get old in a hurry.

[mousdrvr]

I know the Monkey, I've worked with the Monkey, The Monkey is a friend of mine.

There are two things that are generally acknowledged by folks who have spent any time hanging with Bubba. He is ALL about the vibe AND he is a really creative re-harmonizer, who can easily and fluently suggest alternate and better chord voicings for your shit.

This is really not so uncommon amongst the seasoned cats, and I'm always surprised when a thread like this even tries to express concepts like "Tone" and "Theory" as some type of dialectic.

IMHO, The Good Lord gave us a Corpus Callosum, just so we might avoid exactly this type of silliness.

It seems pretty obvious that XOR is NOT the only logical relationship possible. Thank you guys for the many excellent posts which spoke to this point.

Collectively our job is to make people "feel" something. So I can't see the problem in using any and all tools at one's disposal. Denigrating another's choice of tools is a waste of time.

If you can "feel" your modes and keys great, if you can "see" them as shades of color fine, if you can express the relative frequency differences between "perfect" 5ths in all 12 equal tempered keys with German precision that's great too.

Personally I find the more theory I know, and, as has been pointed out, can internalize, the easier it is for me to communicate with other musicians in a working environment.

This last Cape I did something I never have while doing popular music, I took the song, which was difficult for me and I approached it with dry boring theory tools from voice. I went through the seemingly trivial exercise of actually deciding which exact vowel I was singing on which note and marking the phonetic symbol. Then I counted the rhythm till I could write the whole melody out on paper. I was amazed at the difference it made. It was a strong melody but not a complicated one and pretty much anybody up here would have had it in a few passes, still there was another level of "knowing" available and I took it. I'm not claiming that it was such a shit hot performance, ONLY that the dry structural analysis of even a simple tune, really seemed to make my job easier. If that makes me a wanker or a no talent, I think I'll live :lol:




-mous

[Cosmic Pig]

On a similar note... Don't you think Gaye Delorme (http://www.gayedelorme.com/) combines knowledge, taste, tone and talent in a way unimaginable if he was dismissive of theory?



Cheers,
WealsobroughtyouLennyBreau (http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?p=119827#post119827)VArk



.

Gaye's a good example of a tone player who also knows the neck inside and out. If you want to be a monster player you have to know scale AND tone. I was lucky enough to have Gaye do some tracks here in The Room Of Pain once. Just watching him dial up a tone on a mint 60's Fender Concert was a lesson in amp tone. He twiddled knobs for quite a while and I wasn't hearing any difference and wondering wtf, then he started zeroing in on it and I realized he was just getting to know it. I've never heard that amp sound so good, and thats partially because he was playing the amp with the guitar, which is one of the many aspects of tone in my little world of definitions. Yet I would still class Gaye as more of a scale player.

So Dwoz didn't want to read all one billion pages of this thread to see what my definition is, so I'll reiterate.

I think of scale as the notes chosen on the fretboard. Which is where most of theory resides. Tone is any detail work beyond that. With the fretting hand tone would be choice of vibrato, speed and agression of vibrato, bends and slides.

Much of tone from the fingers comes from the combination of picking and fretting, duh... but there's so many ways to pick a note that half of finger tones come from the picking hand.

There's at least ten ways to pick a note, and with cuffing the string, muting or whatever, it becomes as wide a choice as what scale to use.... Then there's wah and amps and talkbox and whammy and blah blah blah. I found my voice in there, not in the scale end of things. Speed becomes a factor because details of tone get lost in fast riffs. A mix is the way to go using both scale and tone.

Thats why I'm saying advanced knowledge isn't for everyone, and definitely not for me. I don't remotely want to play like the guy in the first youtube vid. He's a good player coming at music from the scale end and thats cool, just not me.

But fuck all that.

I haven't been around for a few days because I've been trying to produce a tune for another guy who doesn't know theory. Tune is in F for the verses and C for the chorus, kinda motowny. Chorus goes C then C chord with a B root... whatever the fuck thats called, to an F with the piano doing an A root... hard to explain... If I knew theory I might be able to figure out where the guy went screwy and change the rhythm guitar a smidge so it fits the keys.

I wish I knew theory and fuck off. It has nothing to do with playing, and everything to do with getting to play... or something.

I hope we all learned something.

I will continue to explore tone, and try to learn some theory.

I'm still going to do up an mp3 one of these days for you assholes. I can explain it with sounds much better than words. But some of you still won't get it because you're stuck on scales.

See I win because I learned stuff and you-hoo di-dent so there.

Cos.

[sqkychair]

Heh,
Just now found this thread.

WHY are you guys ragging on cosmic so much?

I kind of see what he is talking about,

BUT...... the players that I think of as "scale runners, mode masters and 32nd note machines"...
Alan Holdsworth, Eric Johnson, Eddie Van Halen, Pat Matheny...(lots more I can't think of right now) all have MONSTER TONE as well.

In fact, in some ways, TONE is their real trademark.

[Droolbucket]

I'm a simple guy, and I don't have the mental capacity to handle complex ideas, so I boil everything down into the most simplistic terms I can. Right or wrong, yes or no, black or white.
Having said that, here is how I look at guitar playing:
My goal is to be able to pick up my instrument and play anything that pops into my head. To do this, I need 4 things:
Technique. Actually, this is lowest on my list, but I need the chops to be able to play my fastest ideas. Luckily, my brain is slow, so I rarely think of fast ideas.
Theory. When you're 15, it's okay to bump noses with your girlfriend and say, "I WUV OO!" Sooner or later, you're going to grow up, and a woman with class is going to want to hear "How do I love thee.....let me count the ways...". So, you need a certain command of the language to express these more complex ideas.
Tone. If you're using music to say how you feel, you want your musical voice to be pleasing. Nobody wants to hear Urkel wax eloquent about his innermost thoughts.
And last, but actually first, you need great musical ideas. Great musical ideas will last forever, but wankery will last just until I can reach the remote control. Luckily, the best way to have great musical ideas is to listen to great music and hang out with great musicians. Eventually, this will trigger great ideas of your own. Personally, I think every budding pop musician should have to study for a year with Jerryskid, in order to get a comprehensive background. :grin:

Really, if you're lacking in any of these 4 areas, your playing is going to get old pretty quickly. Although chops would be last on my priority list. If you've got great ideas, great note choices and great tone, you can play as slow as you want!:grin:

This concludes another episode of "Droolbucket's Rare Lucid Moments", because the Metamucil just kicked in.
Gotta go.

[Cosmic Pig]

I'm a simple guy, and I don't have the mental capacity to handle complex ideas, so I boil everything down into the most simplistic terms I can. Right or wrong, yes or no, black or white.
Having said that, here is how I look at guitar playing:
My goal is to be able to pick up my instrument and play anything that pops into my head. To do this, I need 4 things:
Technique. Actually, this is lowest on my list, but I need the chops to be able to play my fastest ideas. Luckily, my brain is slow, so I rarely think of fast ideas.
Theory. When you're 15, it's okay to bump noses with your girlfriend and say, "I WUV OO!" Sooner or later, you're going to grow up, and a woman with class is going to want to hear "How do I love thee.....let me count the ways...". So, you need a certain command of the language to express these more complex ideas.
Tone. If you're using music to say how you feel, you want your musical voice to be pleasing. Nobody wants to hear Urkel wax eloquent about his innermost thoughts.
And last, but actually first, you need great musical ideas. Great musical ideas will last forever, but wankery will last just until I can reach the remote control. Luckily, the best way to have great musical ideas is to listen to great music and hang out with great musicians. Eventually, this will trigger great ideas of your own. Personally, I think every budding pop musician should have to study for a year with Jerryskid, in order to get a comprehensive background. :grin:

Really, if you're lacking in any of these 4 areas, your playing is going to get old pretty quickly. Although chops would be last on my priority list. If you've got great ideas, great note choices and great tone, you can play as slow as you want!:grin:

This concludes another episode of "Droolbucket's Rare Lucid Moments", because the Metamucil just kicked in.
Gotta go.

Ya bet DB, its how one gets there.

The tone or voice one gets from the amp is a small part of my definition. Which is why I could see easily how Beck would just use whatever amp was wheeled in. One can play an amp with a guitar. The voice or sound of the amp is what decides what tones you'll use on the guitar. On a cleaner amp I might use one type of double stop, and on a dirty amp I'd use another, the idea being, use the double stop that makes the amp sing. Dirty might mean more 1-5's and dual 1's. A cleaner amp voice you might use a more popped picking with the fingers. less sustainy notes etc. Amp voice will determine a lot of choices in finger tones and notes.

I could never pick fast though I sorely wanted to. When I was growing up on guitar through the 80's everybody was equating fast with good. So I did a lot of hammer ons and pull offs trying to keep up with the EVH clones. Bucket loads of meedly meedly trying to pass myself off as something I wasn't. So, the point I keep harping about is; when I turned my back on the scales and started looking at the sounds created I started evolving as a player.

Thats just me. Your results may vary. When I got into engineering was when I really started looking at the sounds created, and it helped define my evolution. I'm not saying I'm a great player, just thats where I be at the moment. Maybe my next step will be theory.

But fuck all that. Maybe I just spent ten pages of net blather saying its all about the music, man.

Stop looking at the right hand and start looking at the left. Stop and ask yourself wtf you're trying to say. Think it out then play it out.

BTW Shotgun. Would you mind changing your sig line? It's dragging our scrap around the forum. I was tempted to change my sig to one of your insults but it occurs to me that's boring for everyone. Peace dude, we had fun now fagedaboudit. Or don't. Whatever. Just sayin'.

Cos.

[nobby]

This whole thread is very bizarre to me because the first rock guitarist I ever recorded in my life was Jeff Beck.

Beck cared so much about tone that he had us just go out and rent him an amp and never blinked when a big Kustom tuck and roll was wheeled into the studio.

Heh heh I remember those things! The best thing about them was the upholstery!

They were transistor amps :Roll eyes: and if you cranked it to ten, turned up the volume pot on the guitar and hit a power chord, it would be almost silent to begin with and then the gain of the amp would fade in. So we'd turn them down a bit. Basically it was about using what you could get your hands on back then.

Anyway, good point. I'd rather use the term musicianship or feel than get caught up in the semantics of "tone" and "scale" and at the end of the day I'd prefer to listen to or play music than discuss it. Dancing about architecture, you know.

[dwoz]

So Dwoz didn't want to read all one billion pages of this thread to see what my definition is, so I'll reiterate.


oh, ok. So I was right, back on page 2. "tone" is phrasing. thanks for clearing that up.


But fuck all that.

I haven't been around for a few days because I've been trying to produce a tune for another guy who doesn't know theory. Tune is in F for the verses and C for the chorus, kinda motowny. Chorus goes C then C chord with a B root... whatever the fuck thats called, to an F with the piano doing an A root... hard to explain... If I knew theory I might be able to figure out where the guy went screwy and change the rhythm guitar a smidge so it fits the keys.


Cos.

Why would you want to change things around for the guy?????

He didn't go screwy....he used LINEAR ROOT MOTION to contrast with the standard I IV (and probably next to either vi or V) progression he's playing.

You can hear something just exactly like it on my Team Artisan tune "Gone" in the CAPE radio. It's a pretty standard, and pretty useful trick!

dwoz

[st robert]

I haven't been around for a few days because I've been trying to produce a tune for another guy who doesn't know theory. Tune is in F for the verses and C for the chorus, kinda motowny. Chorus goes C then C chord with a B root... whatever the fuck thats called, to an F with the piano doing an A root... hard to explain... If I knew theory I might be able to figure out where the guy went screwy and change the rhythm guitar a smidge so it fits the keys.

it's refreshing to see someone so comfortable with having his dick smashed in the car door.

you, a self-admitted theory non-knower, helping produce a guy who does not know theory... having trouble articulating such a simple musical movement, as dwoz described.




this has to be a fucking put on.




i raise my glass to your clients.

[Cosmic Pig]

Dwoz, does phrasing include how you pick the string? I always saw phrasing as more choice of notes and meter etc than choice of tones.

St, nah bullshit. Theory does not a producer make. Not even close. I can figure it out without theory, just takes a little longer. We're talking pop rock and simple patterns here. Whats happening is the singer did a scratch track on piano with some wierd inversions or something. I have an actual piano player coming over and we'll figure it out. If I was a high falutin' producer I'd just go find an arranger when I need theory.

But at 25$ an hour wtf do you expect. Producing in the studio is an efficiency job, preproduction is something else, and has little to do with theory. Some for sure, but not much.

I can't believe how firmly deluded some of you are. Maybe its in our various definitions of what constitutes good music. I wouldn't attempt to play jazz or classical, or produce it, or enjoy listening to it. In the genres I like, my producer chops are fine. Ask any of my customers.

With producing a degree in psychology would serve better than one in theory.

Ha, that should grind a few more pages of abuse outa this thread.

Cos.

[otek]

I can figure it out without theory, just takes a little longer.

You certainly lobbed that ball high enough for a smash, but I am in a charitable mood today. :Razz: :Wink: :D


otek

[Shotgun]

I haven't been around for a few days because I've been trying to produce a tune for another guy who doesn't know theory. Tune is in F for the verses and C for the chorus, kinda motowny. Chorus goes C then C chord with a B root... whatever the fuck thats called, to an F with the piano doing an A root... hard to explain... If I knew theory I might be able to figure out where the guy went screwy and change the rhythm guitar a smidge so it fits the keys.

Help me out here, I fail to see where the song changed key. Depending on what else was in the verse, whole thing sounds Cmaj.-ish to me.




BTW Shotgun. Would you mind changing your sig line? It's dragging our scrap around the forum. I was tempted to change my sig to one of your insults but it occurs to me that's boring for everyone. Peace dude, we had fun now fagedaboudit. Or don't. Whatever. Just sayin'.

Yes, I do mind. Don't say shit that you don't want to see repeated.

~S

[dwoz]

Dwoz, does phrasing include how you pick the string? I always saw phrasing as more choice of notes and meter etc than choice of tones.



Well, think of it in terms of the broader word "phrasing". when you talk about a singer's phrasing, what are you talking about? A) breathing; B) vowels/consonants; C) timing; D) duration of notes; E) head/chest/throat; etc...in no particular order.

Now, "translate" that to any other instrument...say, guitar.



St, nah bullshit. Theory does not a producer make. Not even close. I can figure it out without theory, just takes a little longer. ...

...


...But at 25$ an hour wtf do you expect. Producing in the studio is an efficiency job...



Let me get this straight. If there was a budget, then "using theory" would be more important, for some reason. But when you're on 'a budget', and efficiency is vitally important, the ability to quickly zero in on just exactly what is going on, makes knowing theory (i.e. being able to figure out what is going on quickly) is less important?

whew. glad we got that straightened out.

From my perspective, the fact that I can look at those inversions, and "see" that there's a specific root motion requested "by the theory" makes me a more valuable player...I play the desired roots on the first take, without having to have someone explain to me that that was what was required.

dwoz

[HOOK]

Cos, you are sticking "kick me!!" - signs to your own back!!


...are you into SM?? :Twisted:





HOOK

[mousdrvr]

From my perspective, the fact that I can look at those inversions, and "see" that there's a specific root motion requested "by the theory" makes me a more valuable player...I play the desired roots on the first take, without having to have someone explain to me that that was what was required.

dwoz


Bro,

I think Joni would like to have a chat with you. :lol:


-mous

[Cosmic Pig]

Dwoz, I mean in the studio the job of producer is partially one of efficiency. Preproduction is where you figure out the chords, if it's needed. I rarely need it. And yeah, theory would make you a more valuable player, but I choose players strictly on abilities of playing, not knowledge.

Shotgun, cool, if you ever need more for your sig let me know. You inspire me, and I could make it much more sig worthy if ya like.

If my ego is my sphincter my cherry is intact. A lot of guys have chimed in here saying they see my point and I'm wrong or not, whatever. What I'm down to is arguing with the posers doomed to mediocrity and some guys who are good but love a good shitkicking... Listen to what you've actually done and you'll know which category you're in.

The bottom rungs of the ladder are a clusterfuck of idiots trying to bullshit their way up. Thats why nobody will put up anything they've done, you can't bullshit your ears and it might pop your fart bubble of bullshit.

I learned some stuff by putting up my own work and having you guys beat the shit out of it. Or maybe it just confirmed what I already knew. Maybe I'm just another idiot trying to buy my own crap. Whatever. Listen.

Cos.

[Cosmic Pig]

Oh yeah, and thanks for the definition of phrasing Dwoz. you're right thats what I'm on about.

Cos.

[dwoz]

Bro,

I think Joni would like to have a chat with you. :lol:


-mous


heh....considering that she tends to hire bassists that would rather get a root canal than play a real actual root note....


dwoz

[mousdrvr]

heh....considering that she tends to hire bassists that would rather get a root canal than play a real actual root note....


dwoz

Yeah but you got to KNOW what it is so ya don't hit it by accident and piss her off!

[dwoz]

that's so true...you've got a one-in-12 chance of hitting a gig-ending note if you're not educated...

dwoz

[mousdrvr]

that's so true...you've got a one-in-12 chance of hitting a gig-ending note if you're not educated...

dwoz

Come on man!

You're ignoring the powerful attraction the roman numeral will exert on the fingers and ears of the only partially educated, of which I'm one btw!

:lol:

[Slipperman]

Have fun.

Make music.

Believe what you will as you do so.

Other's may not agree.

Matter's little. It's your life mission/journey, they have their own one to look after.

In the meantime... Don't go crazy.

The real trick is to try to die happy.

All else is folly as far as I can see.

Best regards,

Slippy

[bbkong]

Praise be to the gods of infinite flailing and self immolation!!

The source of high hilarity and confuscation!





And yeah, theory would make you a more valuable player, but I choose players strictly on abilities of playing, not knowledge.

Yeah, all that knowledge stuff really gets in the way of good playing!



If my ego is my sphincter my cherry is intact. A lot of guys have chimed in here saying they see my point and I'm wrong or not, whatever.

I really have no interest in your bruised brown eye, but I do see the point you're trying to make and it's a self defeating perspective at best.



What I'm down to is arguing with the posers doomed to mediocrity and some guys who are good but love a good shitkicking... Listen to what you've actually done and you'll know which category you're in.

This is an intriguing statement because a man's pov is what leads him to mediocrity or greatness. Yours aint lookin like the uphill slope. It screams out that 'this is as good as I need to be, so there! And if you disagree, you're a poser!'.


The bottom rungs of the ladder are a clusterfuck of idiots trying to bullshit their way up.

No disagreement there. We swim in an ocean of mediocrity. Some of these tadpoles think they can strum a few chords and edit their way to greatness, some have decent chops and take shortcuts with gear, some think the answer lies in exotic stompbox/amp collections, but most will fail.

And why?

It's the fire in the belly. The fire to know more, to work harder and swallow up the tadpoles around them.

So tell me one more time how you know enough theory when you can't distinguish the difference between tone and phrasing?



Thats why nobody will put up anything they've done, you can't bullshit your ears and it might pop your fart bubble of bullshit.

Blah blah blah, let's go to the parking lot. That's fuckin hilarious.

I learned some stuff by putting up my own work and having you guys beat the shit out of it.

I don't think you did really. What you put up had no more to do with the point you were trying to make than the soundtrack of a Burger King commercial. Pointless.


What you have put up reminds me of the way I was playing guitar back in 1978. Yeah, I sounded just like you do now. I'd just had a motel room revelation about how scales on the neck all interlocked in the CAGED pattern and I was ready to rewrite all the guitar theory books in the world because I'd never seen it written about in such simple terms. Damn, how could you miss that? It's right there!

So I went on a search for every guitar technique book I could find and I never found it expressed in those terms! What I did find was Mickey Baker. And Jim Hall. And Wes Montgomery.

And I found out I didn't know shit.

I was flabbergasted. So I picked up those books and started learning what they had to offer and the strangest thing happened. The more I studied, the better my playing got because I was absorbing the theory behind the notes I used. Soon I wasn't playing just single line deedle-ohs, I was playing chord melodies and injecting some harmony in situations where most spankers would play a couple of bent notes and pray their sustain would get them to the bridge.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the study of music is a life long endeavor. Once you think you've got it figured out, it'll jump up and bite you in the ass. This whole thread is the teeth in your ass. You're far from done. And if you think you are, then, well,...you're done. Maybe I'll be seein ya in the dollar bin.


Just cuz I like ya, here's one for free:

Late '79 I was working door for the Paradise Club 4 days a week so I could play one night a week and I got a chance to do an hour's warm up for Jim Hall when he came through. He and I sat down in the back office with 2 guitars, he told me to play some 12 bar for him so he could limber up his hands and I eagerly complied, but kept having problems with tempo because my jaw kept flopping onto my strings just watching him. We talked a bit and he gave me a huge clue about phrasing. He said I should listen to sax players to learn phrasing because they never played a phrase they couldn't get out in one breath. Horn players too. Guitar players can play phrases that can go for minutes on end, but they lose the listener's ear because it's not normal breathing. Phrase, breath, phrase. Breathing. It's human nature.

I'm sure by now I've totally passed your attention span, but lucky for you, it's the internet. It'll be here for a while.

There's more if you want to learn more.




Maybe I'm just another idiot trying to buy my own crap. Whatever.

Aint worth a buck to me but you got promise.

[Cosmic Pig]

BB, I ain't buying you're a great player until I hear something. And even then I still won't buy it. You're talking Wes Montgomery and I'm talking Billy Gibbons. That's pretty much the furthest opposite ends of the stick. If you want to play like those guys you mentioned then yes you totally need to know theory. I don't at all want to play like those guys. They're like Ingvie in a tux to my ears.

See now if you would have put up something you played maybe we could have skipped a few dozen pages.

I suspect this is the root of the er... discussion. Which is, as mentioned earlier, what constitutes a good player.


We swim in an ocean of mediocrity. Some of these tadpoles think they can strum a few chords and edit their way to greatness, some have decent chops and take shortcuts with gear, some think the answer lies in exotic stompbox/amp collections, but most will fail.

And why?

It's the fire in the belly. The fire to know more, to work harder and swallow up the tadpoles around them.

I think you're mistaking playing music with the music business. One thing the clusterfuckers all seem to have in common is good sales skills. To be clear, I'm talking about producers and engineers more than players. The players are there too, but its a lot harder to bullshit your way through playing.

We talked a bit and he gave me a huge clue about phrasing. He said I should listen to sax players to learn phrasing because they never played a phrase they couldn't get out in one breath. Horn players too. Guitar players can play phrases that can go for minutes on end, but they lose the listener's ear because it's not normal breathing. Phrase, breath, phrase. Breathing. It's human nature.

Yes that was a eye opener for me too when I realized saying something meant shutting fuck up between sentences. I didn't study sax, but I get that. That's why I said silence is a tool in the tone palette. I learned it from watching blues players.

But anyways, fuck all that. I thought we'd moved on to ass probing my producing abilities. Wtf man?

Cos.

[Cosmic Pig]

So tell me one more time how you know enough theory when you can't distinguish the difference between tone and phrasing?

Well I moved some on that, just not as far as the total degradation you guys crave to get your rocks off. But really, if phrasing includes notching a pick, then sure I'm wrong. But I don't think it does. Figure it out with Dwoz. A phrase to me as I understood it is the sentence, in other words the notes of a riff. Not the tones created by the picking technique or whether the wah should be on ooh or aah at the end.

Cos.

[bbkong]

BB, I ain't buying you're a great player until I hear something.

When did I say I was a great player? I just know the difference. I was trained. Schooled.


You're talking Wes Montgomery and I'm talking Billy Gibbons.

I'm talking Shakespeare and you're talking Bobo the Chimp. Which end of that stick are you advertising?


See now if you would have put up something you played maybe we could have skipped a few dozen pages.

That is still totally beside the point of this conversation. Completely. Totally. Has nothing to do with it. This aint a dick swinging contest.

I suspect this is the root of the er... discussion. Which is, as mentioned earlier, what constitutes a good player.

Nope. You've bypassed your own point of contention.



I think you're mistaking playing music with the music business.

No, this has been about musicianship all along.

One thing the clusterfuckers all seem to have in common is good sales skills.

Again, wrong.

To be clear, I'm talking about producers and engineers more than players. The players are there too, but its a lot harder to bullshit your way through playing.


It's harder to bullshit your way through a career than it is to just sit down and learn the language.



But anyways, fuck all that. I thought we'd moved on to ass probing my producing abilities. Wtf man?

Oh, let's not go there.

The point here is about learning to speak the language before you start talking out your ass.

And really, I mean that in a nice way.

[dwoz]

Hey, Cosmic pig...just pretend that all these things we been laying down are "cosmic truffles", and viola! problem solved.


dwoz

[lambro]

you do not have to know theory to play be-bop, it helps to know it if you want to deconstruct it, but there are folks who have a savant way with playing thru the ii V I etc, check in with Alan Holdsworth for example...he can play insanely bopped out hyper interval sax type lines and its all in the head, nothing on paper, no black napkins. Just structure, an incredible ear and feel can be the foundation.

Folks that refuse to understand (thru study or just sheer talent) true music foundation (how ever they come to know it), are doomed to criticize those with higher levels of development because the advanced players threaten their ego and the criticism helps validate their music, despite being elementary. Which is pretty much what MTV has enabled - the dumbing down of everything while up holding the same level of validity of decades past. In trading we call that a negative divergence.

It is most important to have creative vision and a unique voice but you need technique and musical understanding to be able to make a valid statement. Guitar sounds terrible if you cant play and strumming cowboy cords with conviction only counts for so much. Classical instrument players are expected to be fully versed in music theory, why make and exception for lazy guitarists?

There is a difference between owning an instrument and being a player.

[archtop]

cos.

Talk to me about the minormajor chord.
at the beginning of the just released cape6 team elborgan after the cello intro.

nice plug huh

[Dubnick]

Dwoz, I mean in the studio the job of producer is partially one of efficiency. Preproduction is where you figure out the chords, if it's needed. I rarely need it. And yeah, theory would make you a more valuable player, but I choose players strictly on abilities of playing, not knowledge.If you had any idea how funny this statement is, I doubt you would've said it publicly.

How's this for efficiency:

Being able to pinpoint clashing parts instantaniously and suggest alternatives on the fly. Theory sure helps there.

Being able to offer concrete suggestions on the fly during tracking that will result in a much bigger, better and wider sounding record and allow the mixing engineer to leave the sonic footprint of each instrument more fully intact and not have to carve the life out of every instrument to make it fit. Theory definately helps there.

Being able to come up with lead and harmony vocal suggestions that will take the track to a whole new level. Yep - theory might come in handy on that one too.

With all the above scenarios, one could suggest parts without any knowledge of theory, but especially when dealing with musician's that are not familiar and who might be guarded when it comes to thier music, you have to minimize the amount of times you are totally off in your suggestions and/or unable to express them quickly and clearly. They will see you as wasting thier time and money and this is a quick way to lose thier trust.

And, oh yeah, how about being able to speak the language of the players quickly and succinctly so the session moves at a good clip. For instance, being able to say "Ok, we just need to punch in that anticipation on measure four of the chorus - right as you're coming out of the A7." Instead of "Ok, here's where we're gonna punch - you know that part of the chorus where you go 'Na-na-na-na' on that one chord and you kind of hit it before the beginning of that other measure after it - we're gonna punch in there, cool?".

Again, I can't believe this thread is still going, and I still feel like maybe your putting us on, cause you keep proving the opposite side of your argument with nearly every statement you make.

[Cosmic Pig]

Archtop, definitely a cool chord, matches well with the dirge like slow march of the tune. Where in the hell have I heard it before though? Batman? Some cartoon? Maybe Adam West? Its an old standard scene shift in somethingerother. The meaningful look chord.

Nice job anyway.

Dubnick,

Um, you are aware that Jazz, Blues and Rock have extremely close ties as far as musical lineage goes, right? Have you actually heard Wes Montgomery?

Yup and heard a little bit.

Being able to pinpoint clashing parts instantaniously and suggest alternatives on the fly. Theory sure helps there.

Being able to offer concrete suggestions on the fly during tracking that will result in a much bigger, better and wider sounding record and allow the mixing engineer to leave the sonic footprint of each instrument more fully intact and not have to carve the life out of every instrument to make it fit. Theory definately helps there.

Being able to come up with lead and harmony vocal suggestions that will take the track to a whole new level. Yep - theory might come in handy on that one too.

With all the above scenarios, one could suggest parts without any knowledge of theory, but especially when dealing with musician's that are not as familiar and who might be guarded when it comes to thier music, you have to minimize the amount of times you are totally off in your suggestions or unable to express them quickly. They will see you as wasting thier time and money.

And, oh yeah, how about being able to speak the language of the players quickly and succinctly so the session moves at a good clip. For instance, being able to say "Ok, we just need to punch in that anticipation on measure four of the chorus - right as you're coming out of the A7." Instead of "Ok, here's where we're gonna punch - you know that part of the chorus where you go 'Na-na-na-na' on that one chord and you kind of hit it before the beginning of that other measure after it - we're gonna punch in there, cool?".


What I can't count? I don't know what chord comes out of the whatever? I see what you're saying, but usually its a case of saying "don't hit the drum there". Again, I'm not producing jazz and I wouldn't pretend to try. I can build a harmony as well as the next guy with ears.

When I produce first thing I do is sit down with the song all by myself and come up with suggestions where the tune loses focus or is boring and needs something. Or needs harmonies where ever.

When I'm stumped I walk upstairs and ask Cosmic Wifey what she thinks. She grew up singing Beatles and Motown when it was top 40. She doesn't know theory either.

Speaking of Cosmic Wifey... I'm spending way too much time here lately. She's turned into a womb widow.

Here's a good production inspiration, on Glamour Glamour at Ash Riot's Myspace, (http://www.myspace.com/ashriot) the tune needed something over the chord pattern, so I tossed Good Golly Miss Molly on it. I may have dropped the ball in a few other areas, but she and her manager were way happy. I told her to just scream her head off at the end too. I believe knowing when to scream your head off is more important than theory.

Anyways, fuck all that. Stop! Thread must die. Looks like I'll be busy for the next few days finishing our cape 6 project. I lost a few players. Now thats bad producing haha.

Cos.

[Trazan]

cos.

Talk to me about the minormajor chord.
at the beginning of the just released cape6 team elborgan after the cello intro.

nice plug huh

That's a minor 9 with major 7th... C#min9maj7. But you're right, it has a minor and a major chord within. Haven't heard the term minormajor before though...Cosmic, you've probably heard it in various movies/series with private investigators that enjoys a glass of whiskey, or movies with that chap from England who likes his drink shaken, not stirred.

While we're talking chords; by knowing the theory behind chords and their functions, you are not limited to playing those you have learned only. You can make'em up on the spot. At any time, anywhere on the neck, you could be able to make any chord by moving that left hand no more than a centimeter in either direction. You wouldn't want to be able to do that? You don't see how much more fluid this could make your playing? No need to leave that long toneful note to get to a chord.

[otek]

Alan Holdsworth for example...he can play insanely bopped out hyper interval sax type lines and its all in the head, nothing on paper, no black napkins.


This is actually not quite true.

Allan Holdsworth devised his own theoretical system because he felt standard notation and chord analysis were simply not practical for how he hears music.

He actually sometimes does keep chord charts (with his own peculiar symbols) on stage, for easy reference.

I hold dear the disparity between Santa Clause and homelessness, Hotwheels and your first lovesick walk home. Innocence and being sent to kill for your country. I was conceived in the back of a 57 chevy. I wallow in the extremes of the false fifties, cool cars rock and roll, greasers and the American dream. Then I'll wallow in the commie witch hunt 50's. Peace love spare change 60's, then the brink of nuclear war 60's. What a Wonderful World makes me cry, but I drink with bikers.

Why can't Cos write more stuff like this instead?



otek

[myrtlebacker]

Jennifer Batten (http://www.bravewords.com/news/86046) supports Cosmic Pig indirectly :

'Fearless' - "My first endeavour back to the acoustic guitar after many years exclusively with electric only. The guitar is in an odd tuning and I have no idea what any of the notes are. It was just written from sound, which is very freeing."

Rekindling the flames ;)

[Cosmic Pig]

The thing that continues to astound me is why none of you will put up examples of your playing. Except one chord from Archtop.

I mean shit BB for instance has been playing since '78 at least. As a learning AE when someone puts up a mix thats good then says something I listen. Are all your egos that fragile? I'm starting to think you're all just here for the shitkicking.

As I pointed out earlier, if you want to sound like Beck and Gibbons, theory, or advanced knowledge of the neck, won't help you. Study of tones will. Tones as defined by me, not phrasing, tones.

I even offered a free guitar lesson. But obviously this thread isn't about music or even about knowledge, its about what constitutes good playing. If you thought I sucked in the clips I so bravely put up then you're probably heading down a different path than me. Which is cool. I get that some players will immerse themselves in a style or player to the exclusion of all else. I know some very talented players that went through an insufferable SRV stage, or an EVH stage. Couldn't talk to them either.

But really, stfu man. You guys obviously have no interest in looking at anything else, just as I have no interest in playing like Wes Montgomery. Its cool but stfu and let the thread die.

I'm getting pissed off because Cosmic Wifey is withholding the fancy luvin until I get the fuck off this forum. To make matters worse I had some of Team Cosmic Pig abandon ship so I have to do all the guitar work now. Poor team Cosmic Pig, not only did they get a shitty producer but now they have to put up with my repetitive two mode screechings. If I knew that octave thing I could maybe screech a little higher to break things up.

Damn I wish I knew theory. Fuck I could count to 4 and everything. That would be so cool. The only thing that saves my ass here is there's only one chord for most of it. I just won't play the other ones cuz they hard.

Me need theory to tell team stuff. Make song gooder. Me go fuck wife now long time. Then make screech noise at record button.

Cos.

[Trazan]

The thing that continues to astound me is why none of you will put up examples of your playing. Except one chord from Archtop.

So what do you want these examples to prove?

[eagan]

As I pointed out earlier, if you want to sound like Beck and Gibbons, theory, or advanced knowledge of the neck, won't help you. Study of tones will. Tones as defined by me, not phrasing, tones.

...... But obviously this thread isn't about music or even about knowledge, its about what constitutes good playing.


.....and here comes the field coming around to take the green flag for the restart.


JLE

[st robert]

As I pointed out earlier, if you want to sound like Beck and Gibbons, theory, or advanced knowledge of the neck, won't help you. Study of tones will. Tones as defined by me, not phrasing, tones.



it's a good thing those guys don't play piano.

nobody should play piano. you can't fuck with the tone. pointless exercise.

[mousdrvr]

it's a good thing those guys don't play piano.

nobody should play piano. you can't fuck with the tone. pointless exercise.

Well, I suppose you could, you know.... REALLY fuck with it. Throwing cat food and car parts and all kinds of shit inside, Then you could just kind off bang randomly on it, God forbid we should be concerned about our choice of "notes"! You could record the whole thing and call it "No Theory Required" Just pure expression of the human spirit.



-mous

[lebouche]

Again, because it's completely irrelevant to the topic.



Try '62.




Nobody can drive by a good wreck without staring.



SQUANK! CRASH!!burn.



He swings again...he misses again.





Not on yer fuckin life Jack. This thread is gonna keep suckin air like a carp trapped in the spillway in August until you admit you're a total skeezix and shoulda stfu on page 2.

Besides, the hospitality tent is already set up and there's a busload of goobers coming over from HarmonyCentral to see wtf is goin on.





It's free. Go here:http://www.happynote.com/music/learn.html

They not only made it fun, they use big letters.

Takes a couple of weeks to get it, a couple of decades to really get it.

In a month you'll be a new man and a better musician.
It's not free...you only get C to G free.
I reckon there are surely people who play completely by ear who have no knowledge of theory. However...why limit yourself...unless you are completely incapable of acedemic learning.

[lambro]

This is actually not quite true.

Allan Holdsworth devised his own theoretical system because he felt standard notation and chord analysis were simply not practical for how he hears music.

He actually sometimes does keep chord charts (with his own peculiar symbols) on stage, for easy reference.

otek

Sorry Otek, I've seen Holdsworth about 15 times since 1982 and I dont recall any cheat sheets...some of those shows I was right up against the stage too, besides the point is he became a virtuoso outside of the traditional study methods and my point was however you get there, you need to try to get to a higher level.

Not saying it would take anything away from Alan if he did bring some paper, but the trick is SOLOING thru the changes and that is where his self taught brilliance shines

as for the rest of this thread its pretty weak, all spurned on by one persons constant friction against the truth

I see this in trading circles, usually guys (never women oddly) loosing their ass grasping at straws as they go down, hostile and antagonistic just for the sake of being so. Its old with an "e"

[Cosmic Pig]

So what do you want these examples to prove?

All kindsa stuff.

You guys are vomiting out page after page of misquotes and drivel with one goal; to steer the thread away from the actual application of said theory. I get it, you guys suck and can't back it up. You guys can throw all the yougoober vids of legendary jazz players at me til your little weenies squirt with joy, but its all bullshit until an actual non-legendary player uses it.

But you're right, there's no point to putting up examples because as I said twice already, I suspect your definitions of what is good playing are different from mine, which after all these pages means you're all just dumbfuck music snobs, and you probably suck. As the bumper sticker says: If it ain't country music it's shit. Y'all need bumper stickers to announce your ignorance to the world, but they don't make em that say jazz, so this forum will have to do.

I'd go toe to toe with Wes Montgomery and kick his ass playing Mustang Fucking Sally for bar goofs, and he'd kick my ass playing jazz at a snobfest. Assuming he didn't have a chart for 16 bar blues. Quote that mutherfuckers haha.

Okay maybe not but you get the idea.

See, if we had some examples up we could have a conversation about tone. I'm not nearly as anti-theory as you guys make out. learn whatever the fuck you want. Have fun with your half of music.

Cos.

[archtop]

and another thing,

why is it that you think you can feel music,

but none of us can?

Cos, I actually wrote you a song last week 'cause you wanted us to show our weiner.

But then I put in in the other amp thread instead.

http://thewombforums.com/showpost.php?p=120707&postcount=45

But I actually wrote it for you :) ( wasn't that nice)

and it used to be called CP, but then I changed the name for the other thread.

I guess I'm posting it so you can say:

"see, your not qualified to give me advise, you suck"

anyway, there you go.


your BFF
a

[HOOK]

I'd go toe to toe with Wes Montgomery and kick his ass playing Mustang Fucking Sally for bar goofs, and he'd kick my ass playing jazz at a snobfest. Assuming he didn't have a chart for 16 bar blues. Quote that mutherfuckers haha.


:Roll eyes: :Roll eyes: :Roll eyes: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well I expect you would do that as he is dead!

OTOH

Judging from your postings he might still kick your ass playing mustang fucking Sally being dead....


See, if we had some examples up we could have a conversation about tone. I'm not nearly as anti-theory as you guys make out. learn whatever the fuck you want. Have fun with your half of music.

Shit I dont even know where to start??

The examples would only prove your point (or mine) if you could get the same player play the same tune with and without theory....
This is not about if you play better or worse than me, its about you stating (over and over) that theory don't make you a better musician, in fact you seam to say that the opposite is true.

This is why its totally utterly, fucking pointless to insert examples in this kind of discussion:

Theory doesn't play your instrument for you, it helps you to understand what the fuck you are doing so you can apply you playing skills, concept of tone, phrasing, inspiration, musical ideas, whatever in other contexts than the one you originally learned them in.

Hell, if uploaded MP3s has anything to do with you being right ( or rather far out to the left) you should choose the right carpenter to rebuild your house by a speed nailing contest...or rather in you case, choose the carpenter whose nails rang the best while going into the wood! :Razz:



HOOK

[otek]

I have to thank Mous for a couple of incredible and insightful posts.

:Thumbsup:


I suppose if I were to hone in on my biggest beef with the whole "tone/scale" argument, it is that the term "tone" is used elsewhere in this thread to alternately describe two different things - first, the actual creation and composition of tonal character on an instrument, second, the musical, creative and imaginative aspect.

The first is a product of technique, one correctly described by Cos as "attained by playing". You don't acquire a good quality tone unless you actually play your instrument - a lot.

The other side is more complex, because it deals with the actual music - and this cannot really be quantified in simple terms. One might refer to it as "the soul".

There has been a tendency in Cos's argument to bundle the two above qualities together as one. I believe this is a fallacy.
Whereas the technical concepts of "scale" and "tone" certainly help get "the soul" of music across, they are not "the soul". I believe the soul in and of itself defies description, because it is beyond words.

The consequences of this dual reference to the term "tone" are several, but most importantly, there is an underlying conceit - whatever players are judged as appearing more on the "tone" side of the spectrum are ostensibly considered more musically valid, even though they are just focusing on a different aspect of technical discipline. The ability to produce interesting and appealing tonal qualities on your instrument does not in itself make the music better, just as little as playing notes in rapid succession or unpredictable patterns.

A second flaw is a direct corollary to the first - as playing changes dynamically depending on style and composition, Jeff Beck playing "Space Boogie" would be considered less musically valid than Jeff Beck playing "A Day In The Life".



otek

[dwoz]

Of course, the very best part about this all is the assumption that there is ONLY ONE music theory.

What Coz refers to as "theory" is the rather recent discipline of "functional harmony" which applies to western musics that are executed in a 12 tone scale.

that format of theory is by no means complete or comprehensive...it is in fact utterly useless when discussing, say, gamelan or ragas.

I bet coz would have a FIELD DAY with the "scalists" of raga. A music theory that is for the most part oral tradition, but which is very evolved and also very much more 'constraining' than 12 tone functional harmony.

Raga scales aren't just scales, they are aspects of the Aum, they are themselves dieties, with specificity of emotion and meaning that put us westerners to shame with soiled diapers.

There are the subcontinent musics and their theory....the instruments aren't mere instruments, they are surrogates for the powers within nature. When "speaking" with a particular drum, for example...there is a way to strike it ("tone") and there is also, quite as important, a lexicon of patterns that are appropriate to play on it ("scale"), and conversely, things that you must NEVER play on it. The drum is not, after all, "just" a drum...it is a surrogate voice, perhaps of the earth itself. there are things that are "in character" for the earth to speak, and other things that are not in the character of the earth to utter.

Kind of like going to the Vatican plaza at Easter, and listening to the Pope run through a bunch of ribald limericks...it's just not in the character of the Pope to do that (in public anyway), and it just is not in the character of THIS drum to do that either.

I could go on...all the indigenous musics in fact have musical oral traditions that amount to highly complex theories.

The medieval music avoidance of the tritone...a cultural context captured within the structure of a theory.

I am with mousdrvr on this, and I proudly SHOUT his credo, "XOR is NOT"...the sense of duality is illusory and will send you down the wrong path EVERY time. there is only the one....

and that "one" is "context".

It is ALL "context".

dwoz

[lambro]

tone is in the fingers

Eric Johnson sounds like himself regardless of axe or amp, so does anyone that has found their own voice

not saying that guitars and amps dont have their own inherent tone, but the magic is the driver of the tone vehicle


Mous...Kinkos...thats a good one, I''ve felt on the brink of Starbucks, good thing we didnt have to pass IQ hurdles to get in to the Malstrom

Rupinder circa 1979 "Is this clear to everyone?"

[dikledoux]

In the interest of keeping this completely retarded thread going, and in order to make my best attempt to explain to Cos what the REST of creation is on about, I'll do as he's challenged and post a song. I'm doing this not because I think it'll show how theory will make him (or anyone) a better player, but because it'll help to illustrate the point that NOT knowing theory and how it applies to your instrument is a hamstring.

The song is attached below and it's called Hey Grandma. It's from the <shameless plug> brand new record by my band Chees Kees. I'm playing the guitar parts, acoustic and electric, and singing. I've actually had an electric guitar amp for all of about a year or two, so the "tone" I'm producing with this thing is representative of what I figured out in that time.

So here's the thing. There's the elec guitar part on this song, and I'm pretty happy with it. It's not all that complex or "scale-ey", but the song doesn't call for that. I wanted a steel guitar, but didn't know anyone that played steel when we were tracking so I just tried to go in that direction from a tone and feel perspective. But I still had to work out the parts.

And work the parts out is what I did, and it's what I do every friggin' time I have to play a guitar part. It was a slow, clumsy, dumb-ass process that I could've accomplished in a tenth of the time if I knew how to spell chords in different places on the neck. If I knew the names of the notes in the key this song is written in, or better yet all the possible modal options that this key gives me, the note-names in those modes/scales and where those are on the neck without having to count frets and shit; I'd have busted this out in seconds - cuz I heard it in my head in less time than that.

And that's where the theory comes in. For me as an illiterate musician, it's a real struggle to transfer what I hear in my head to my instrument (not so much on drums - because I don't have to care about keys and scales, etc. - just time considerations). I can think of, hear and appreciate just about any music you throw at me. But I can't reproduce it, or jump in on it, or see things as they're coming up because I don't know my theory like the back of my hand. I know theory like a first grader knows how to spell and make sentences and use a pencil. I know it, but I haven't internalized it to apply it to my instrument effortlessly. When I'm writing, I've got my tongue stuck out and my nose right down on the paper and I'm d-r-a-w-i-n-g the letters with a big fat kiddie pencil rather than just writing sentences without thinking about the words and grammar so much.

So when I play out, I play the notes I already know for the most part. I don't have many options about variations on even simple themes because my theory knowledge is limited and I don't have the level of FACILITY with the theory aspects and how they apply to guitar. I will summon the bad clams if I stray too far off the script. While I can HEAR other ideas in my head WRT melody and harmonic content of the song, I can't execute much of that on the fly.

From a "tone" and "feel" perspective, I can make my instrument sound like I intend to because it's always been easy for me to get good sounds out of many instruments. A little trial and error and I know what I can get because a lot of the tone is a result of my physical interaction with the instrument. But can I apply that "tone" to a new melodic idea on the fly? In large part the answer is no. And the ability to vary melodic/harmonic content is INTIMATELY coupled with the idea of tone.

INTIMATELY COUPLED WITH THE IDEA OF TONE!!!!

So you can't leave one behind to go on a so-called journey for the other. If that's your jouney, it's like going on a trip and only looking out one window of the car the whole time.

dik

[HOOK]

tone is in the fingers

Its all in your fingers (and/or in your lips or vocal cords).
This is not exclusive for git players, it goes for every instrument.

...and it goes for AEs to if you are doing your craft by the faders and not by the mouse. In real time that is; playing the faders.



HOOK

[lambro]

we all strive to make a turkey sandwich

the essential molecular building blocks are always the same, the ratios and form are always different, even if an exact copy is the goal.

There is no way to make a turkey sandwich without involving all the senses, each sandwich will have its own unique ratio of energy emitting sensory qualities which creates the tone as a perception of the sandwich recipient. Each sandwich experience is unique and occupies a unique place in history as well as in the individual history of the recipient's sensory development.

the sandwich artiste puts an individual signature on each creation that combines some form of building technique, and the tone is the unique combination of sensory emitters.

Some artists are very accurate slicers (threatening to those who do not have that skill, they might be labeled as unfeeling because of their precision), other artists use a dull knife and make a mockery of structure, (bringing in to question the relevance of their Sandwichian title altogether), some use the tastiest of antibiotique fueled uber birds (which can upset those who dont know how to get the good birds), and others yet for whatever reason, use grey decaying fly covered softballs of rotted bird muscle, (out of sheer stupidity or as a rebellion against all that is good and tasty). Every combination ratio of these 4 quadrants exists. Each Sandwichian falls somewhere in that grid.

What has come into question is the need for structure for the presentation of the sensory emitters. Serving the bird on a dirty stick is function with low structural form. For those who have learned to use knives and forks and created a Sandwich, the form is enhanced with no detraction from the substance, everything is then elevated from elemental substance to art.

The true Master Sandwichian will have the highest skill of both extremes of the building process, quality structure and quality substance - a master of both grunt and lump. A Master will not have his structure or substance called into question - they will work together to become a sum greater than the parts.

[mousdrvr]

Damn Lambro!

Great Point.

I have the great fortune of being able to spend a good deal of time with several folks who, by any reasonable standard, would be considered true masters and, in my experience, they all have several things in common.

1) They never attempt to elevate the essential importance of their art, or their own philosophy of their art above any other.

2) They speak only from personal experience

3) They treat their art primarily as craft

4) They're curious. They will look anywhere and everywhere for more and deeper knowledge

5) They seem to have a much better grasp of the subtle but
important distinction between judgment and discernment

6) They're humble, not falsely modest, they know they kick ass, but they're always on about how great their teachers were.

If you're that kinda person, then yeah by all means take this mous to school! I don't care if you're making turkey sandwiches or carving dug out canoes, I'm damn sure you have something to teach me.

Id like to think I'm open to the possibility but I've never yet met anyone who said "I'm gonna open your eyes to a whole new world" who actually did or could.


I know this one cat who at 73 is absolutely at the top of his game. He's still doing it but he doesn't go on about it much. If you go out walking with him say past a sandwich shop, and he sees someone caught up in their process/flow/groove it sucks his attention like a black hole and he'll go on for an hour about how much attention and care they are putting into their sandwich and how that attention and care is really worthy of the utmost respect.



-mous

[nobby]

Hey, Dik, I love "Hey Grandma".

For Rock stuff I don't really think about theory, I just play it. Same for Blues and some Jazz.

The following Rock song has probably more chords in it than any Rock song you've ever heard, albeit all major and minor chords except for an Am7, couple of maj 7 chords I guess. And that... uh... other chord, I'm calling it an E #7#9 until someone wants to correct me (The "Foxy Lady" chord, but in E).

There's no reason for me to deconstruct it to figure out the theory, because I already know how it goes, if that makes any sense to anyone.

Trouble (http://www.theconveyors.com/audio/THE_CONVEYORS-.m3u)

.

[bbkong]

Um....I think that's an E7+9, the same as Foxy Lady unless you were using an SRV record player that ran a half step slow.

[chrisj]

I totally think I understand what Cosmic Pig is on about. I just wish I could demonstrate it :Cry:

The funny thing is Cos keeps trying to explain what he means by running down a list of tricks and techniques, like a catalog, but what jumps out for me is that though his note choice isn't special, I keep hearing a conviction, a character in whatever's being presented.

It's like swing. I can enjoy Yngwie slightly, but he's stilted as hell. Some of the most impressive jazzguys linked to in this thread have been pretty stilted- or their note patterns were just stunning but there was no character, the notes were coming out awkward.

I give up- I'll do it. I have no special problem with humiliating myself and being abused for sport. I have recorded an mp3 which exudes, nay DRIPS tone :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nah. But I recorded myself playing electric NOT plugged in, in the hopes people can listen to the way the various notes come out for good or ill. Most are horrible, but they do come out in a lot of different ways, also mostly horrible.

But goddammit, at least three of those notes had fuckin TONE. I'm serious. If they all had tone I would be good, but you can't EVER have tone just by accident.

It's like trying to fling out a musical idea with attitude- wistful is an attitude- ballsy is an attitude- like FZ said to Vinnie Coliauta, "play it with more eyebrows". At least three notes in this trainwreck have great eyebrows.

Bracing for impact of many vegetables + dead fishes...

[Cosmic Pig]

Chrisj, you got the idea. If you want a critique, You said a few things there, but what I heard was a few notes with feeling, and some diddly bits in between them that were filler. I'd say knock it down even further to less notes... screw the diddly bits. Work on saying something with less scale, less notes. Diddly bits is the first place everybody goes when they can't say something with a single note. Thats a hard one to get past, and something I still fight with. That and remembering to put holes in a solo.

The first thing I did when I got a little better on guitar was turn my solos into a steady stream of notes farts and giggles. Wasn't saying a damn thing, just babbling. Not saying you do that... just sayin.

BB, the final refuge of a beaten man is in "Well thats not what we were talking about".

Your theory about not needing theory only applies to one instrument (yours) and the limitations you impose on yourself.

I said several times I was talking about guitar because thats what I play. There's nothing wrong with going down a different path for a while. Its not even a different path. Some guys go down the scale path way too long, and some go down the tone path too long. Scale is too often taught as the way out of a slump, learn a new scale and you won't be bored anymore. I believe tone is a better alternative. Work on saying something with 2 or 3 notes. Its harder than learning a new scale, but a better way out.

The problem is that when you reach out and learn other instruments (as many here have done) you really do need to have some solid theory under your belt so you can relate one instrument to the other.

Further, to become a journeyman producer you need to understand what each instrument's job is in the context of any given song and know how and when to apply it. And when not to. I can't stress that enough.

Theory is a valuable tool in producing, but I think tone is even more valuable, again depending on what you're producing. I see theory as understanding how all those notes can work together, tone is understanding how they sound together. I'm pretty sure there are as many tone choices on a drum kit as there are on guitar, and how the drums are played in a context leads to the most important choice; how they feel. Which is what producing is about more than how the notes fit together.

I don't imagine that backing up the focus of a tune with all the instruments and sounds has as much to do with what the notes are as how they're played. But really it all depends on what the tune you're producing is, if its jazz or a more complicated genre, you definitely need theory because they rely more heavily on scale flavor, how the notes and rhythms make you feel. If it's rock or blues, simple music, then its all about the tones created and how they feel.

I believe there's more emotional content in simple music. Less brain more heart. Hence tone being more important in playing or producing simple music.

Cos.

[Jasco]

I believe there's more emotional content in simple music. Less brain more heart. Hence tone being more important in playing or producing simple music.

Cos.

While I agree that thinking while playing hurts ones 'soulfulness', I disagree that there is more emotional content in 'simple' music or that 'tone' is more important in simple music. The emotion is in the player, not the level of complexity of the tune.

Your statement seems to imply that one has to actively think about more 'complex' harmonic changes while playing them.

You see, whether I'm playing a one chord Howlin Wolf tune, or a more harmonically complex John Coltrane tune, I'm doing the same amount of thinking onstage - none.

All the thinking is done during training, not during performing. I had a great guitar teacher tell me once "Practice with your mind, play with your heart." With enough correct training, things that seem complex become simple.

Also, you seem to classify anything that is fast/complex as scales. When I'm training to play over faster more harmonically sophisticated tunes I'm usually not thinking scales at all. I'm just thinking about the chords and trying to hear melodies and phrases.

Additionally, there are many other dangerous ways to allow thinking destroy a performance that are not related to the 'complexity' of the tune. I shouldn't be thinking about technique and it's effects on tone either while performing. Nor should I be thinking things like "shit, there's Robben Ford off to stage right listening to me." So the implication that harmonically complex tunes require more thinking during performance and have less soul than more simple songs doesn't hold up for me.

Now, I doubt you'll take this advice, but I truly think your musicality would be well served by doing more investigation into some of the styles of music you state that you currently aren't interested in, such as jazz and classical. You would learn some things about 'tone' from those, and other, styles as well.

[chrisj]

It's tricky tho Cos because some of the stuff I love is diddly bits. I always think of one particular moment- it's on that Zep DVD with the red mesas (not amps, the REAL THING) on the cover.

I think it's on 'Since I've Been Loving You'. Page makes a couple of lame, ugly notes on his Les Paul, in a lull, and then BOOM the band comes back in, and the next thing you know he rips out this burst of notes that's like a sparkler going off. TONE. It's one of those bright splatters of notes but it's not machinelike, or even fluid like a Paul Gilbert, it's like a sonic guitar cumshot, and I'm not even sure anybody else would 'get it' but that instant made me replay the DVD about 12 times, just not believing what I was hearing.

Definitely not just one note.

The funny thing is my weedly crap is very much hammerons and pulloffs and one of the few bits that talk the language of shred guys however haltingly- without that, it's pretty much all animalistic squawks and groans that might impress some non-musicians but are easy pickings for anybody trying to criticise my technical ability. I can blame the fact that so much of that is just 'what falls under the fingers naturally', and usually when I trip it's because I'm trying to think of something unexpected and stumbling.

The theory stuff in there probably was in both the 'tone' 1% and the crap 99%- consider that. I'm not exactly sure what scales were where, except one bit where I threw in a whole-tone run on purpose- there was a lot of theoretic stumbles in there as well, because I was determined to get INTO those areas on purpose rather than pretend to play da blooz. Of course I failed but not at playing minor pentatonic :)

Hell, when the band is in a major key and the blues solo guy is weedling away in the minor pentatonic and it sounds like total crap, he's making THEORY mistakes and you have to teach him, "here, slide that down three frets dude- there, you see?". If he gets it, he's just learned a bit of theory, perhaps the only bit he will ever need for that, but by GOD he really did need it.

I love the twisted ominous scary crap, not just major and minor blues. Some of the things I want to hear can ONLY happen from knowing enough theory to be able to hit that vibe, because all theory is, is different flavors of vibe you can have, and each one is there in a specific place. If you ever wondered, "but WHY does my stuff always sound more like 'Allman Bros' than 'Hot Rats" or heard shit that sounded like it was coming from a completely different but cool place- not necessarily a lead solo, but maybe orchestrated or written stuff on other instruments than guitar- that's the whole point.

It's not supposed to be a dry academic exercise, or people doing gymnastics awkwardly on stringed instruments. That's just when it's done badly. Done properly you get a vibe that's more than just Zakk Wilde.

I like this guy, even if you don't. This is Paul Gilbert and he makes lots of notes sound fun, like he's a kid. Pretend you're a little kid and see if this sounds cool- then if you can get to around 2:50, take a minute and think about why that really dense flurry of notes he does feels sort of sinister and ominous. It's all in the theory- the patterns of notes he's playing are as different as chords and they're all consistent and they're changing every three seconds to a new distinct pattern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPGA3vjMLgE

Those are the bits of theory that I _like_, even when I didn't like all the jazz guys that I heard, even when a lot of what Paul plays is more shred than feel. This is why theory can be cool and desirable- not just to play lots of weedly notes, but if you want to change vibe to a different chord or a whole different vibe and make that change really register.

If you're jamming the blues and the whole band drops down a wholestep, that's a big arrangement change right? But it sounds exactly like everybody dropped down a wholestep. What if you could throw a big vibe change like that, but it didn't sound like 'everybody, down two frets!' and instead it sounded like everybody abruptly changed mood but not in any way you could mechanically identify? THEORY.

[Cosmic Pig]

Yup I hear ya Chrisj, what I was getting at is when you chop it back to saying something in less notes you get better at saying something in the diddly bits too. As SRV says, play hard. What I was hearing is you stopped playing hard in the diddly bits. In whatever you play slap the hammer on hard and pick hard.

Thats just my thoughts on your playing though and not to be taken seriously. I'm by no means an expert.

BB,
While being important, it's just one of the elements and you seem to have inflated its importance out of proportion. I understand. I got so stoned once I saw Jesus in the bottom of the bong. No biggie.


At first you were annoying me, now you're just boring.

I won't argue its level of importance, it be what it be, and to each his own. At least we're on the same page.

That wasn't jesus it was your reflection. It might explain the delusions of grandeur haha.

And yeah, I'm starting to bore myself too.

Cos.

[dikledoux]

ChrisJ, thanks for the Paul Gilbert link. You may have stumbled upon a monstrously solid and detailed explanation to help CosPig understand that "meedly-meedly" and "uh-hunh muthafucka" are NOT separate universes. They're a continuum that, once spanned successfully with the tools of understanding and practice can yield a much larger palette.

Here's what I mean.

Gilbert YouTube Link #1 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW1JveshnJg&feature=related)

C'mon, Cos. Check it out, mang. Dude's completely down with the tone thing (as you'll discover if you check out all three), but he's the meedly-meedly-meister. How can it BE!?!?!?!?!

dik

P.S. If I could do what this guy can do, I'd no doubt stay closer to one end of the spectrum. But holy shit.

[Cosmic Pig]

Dik, nawww. Gilberts great and I'm a Racer X fan, but I only heard 5 ways to pick a string there; up, down, cuffed, and hammer on pull off. The dudes got some tone but he's no Beck or Gibbons, or even Gilmore for tone and feel.

For straight up scale flavor Hotel California comes to mind. Leastways, scale is the main tool used. That little "whit" at the end of one of the phrases in there where he whips the note up at the end of the note, is the tone thing I'm talking about. That little eety beety whit is a major part of the solo.

Its more than just slow playing with feel. Its a mix of slow and fast with feel. Way too many players think good guitar playing is about speed and dexterity. Speed is one aspect of many, and way too many players concentrate on just that.

But if you want to play like Gilbert then yup theory is good, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Cos.

[Trazan]

Way too many players think good guitar playing is about speed and dexterity. Speed is one aspect of many, and way too many players concentrate on just that.

But if you want to play like Gilbert then yup theory is good, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Cos.

Cos, this is where you go wrong. There's very little theory involved in this type of playing, it's mostly training fingers to move fast. Theory is NOT about speed or plain notes without "content". This thing you call scale playing or theoretic playing or whatever is just plain lack of musicality and/or musical focus. Or we could just call it a matter of taste of course.

Theory is there, at least to me, to help me hear more, explore the unknown or understand what tickles me. In addition it will help me communicate better verbally with other musicians.

Just playing those pubs without studying will only make you better at what you already know. Had you been shown how to approach theory and use it in a musical context I can almost guarantee you some new smiles. And you wouldn't have to put your "tone" aside. You use theory to get better, not to dictate you to go where you don't wanna be.

[Cosmic Pig]

I hear you Trazan, and don't disagree really. Thats why I brought up Hotel California. That solo uses a lot of theory I think, or rather can be explained better with theory. The scales in it follow the chord pattern quite a bit at any rate. To me that solo is as good a reason to learn the neck well as anything.

I do think theory, or advanced learning, is fairly important to shred though.

Getting better at what you already know is a good point. What I see as being fully half of music, the sound created, gets lost in the quest for better scales and theory. I don't see theory or scales as always being the best way to better playing. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, but theory gets all the press.

Something else you find in the little blues box is timing. Theory covers that I imagine, but it's often overlooked. Straight 8th notes are fine but add a 3/16 note bend and skip a half note later then try to land on the 1. Theres a world in there too.

Cos.

[Ethan Winer]

Guys,

I've been following this thread on and off with semi-interest. I suppose I'm late to the game with this post, but yesterday I put together a simple music theory puzzle to solve. Well, I didn't do it, Bach did. :lol: No fancy jazz chords, just the basics, and maybe a few people will find this useful:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/analyze.html

--Ethan

[dikledoux]

I do think theory, or advanced learning, is fairly important to shred though.
I'm spending time with my pathetic attempts at internalizing theory and I have no interest whatsoever in shredding.

What I DO want to be able to do is to:
1. know the chords that I'm playing in as many places on the neck as possible so that I can
2. have more choices available and immediately apparent about what notes to play and
3. THEN invoke stretches, pulloffs, various inflections, slinky behaviour and attitude to make my melodic choices really hit home.

But if I don't know what melodic or chord choices I have, then my trick bag is limited to what licks I already know.

dik

[otek]

Every time I think I've made my last post on this thread, there's just something that comes up I feel compelled to comment on.

Thats why I brought up Hotel California. That solo uses a lot of theory I think, or rather can be explained better with theory. The scales in it follow the chord pattern quite a bit at any rate.

Cos, you basically just described about 98% of all pop music since the days of Bill Haley. The "scale following the chord pattern" is simply about playing melodies inside the given boundaries of the chords.

Everything that's been done can be described and/or analyzed using the tools of theory, some things will be less complex and some more so. You are making the assumption that theory by definition only applies to complex musical events. If you want to make the analogy of comparing theory to language, language can be used to convey the thoughts of Dr. Seuss just as well as Marcel Proust. Language, like theory, is not necessarily about complexity, either.

I do think theory, or advanced learning, is fairly important to shred though.

What is shred? It's a slang term to describe very fast playing, typically associated with distorted guitar sounds. It's not even a musical style. It's a term that refers to guitar.

I'd say theory is important in all kinds of music. One aspect of theory that hasn't been discussed is, if you want to play in a certain idiom, each musical style has a fairly rigid relationship to the world of theory - even the blues! If you try to play the blues and disregard those boundaries, pretty soon it no longer sounds like blues!.

What I see as being fully half of music, the sound created, gets lost in the quest for better scales and theory.

Something else you find in the little blues box is timing.

I disagree. "Tone and scales", just like timing in some ways, are just different elements of technique.

I said that already two pages back, in a post that was pretty much universally ignored. Read it again, especially the part about why "tone" as a concept in your cosmology (no pun intended) is flawed.


otek


PS. On the "blues box", am I still not allowed to play the fifth degree? :Wink:

[Slipperman]

If you try to play the blues and disregard those boundaries, pretty soon it no longer sounds like blues!.


Heavy Metal.

SM.

[lambro]

study study or bonk bonk on the head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYlx5gW90Aw&feature=related

Music Theory is not....its reality. Theories are unproven.

Also, a note to anyone else that wants to cop a "I'm tone god" vibe, at least have tone thats a step up from a guitar center jamathon..



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htobScsOB70&feature=related

[Trazan]

Originally Posted by otek http://thewombforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?p=122699#post122699)
If you try to play the blues and disregard those boundaries, pretty soon it no longer sounds like blues!.

Heavy Metal.

SM.

Polka

[chrisj]

Actually, Cos isn't doing so bad there- check it out.

That Hotel California solo (traded solos) is a PHENOMENAL solo and part of what makes it really special is when it goes beyond simple theory and heavily into 'tone' or 'eyebrows' or 'I really have to program a lot of numbers into this to approximate anything like what the human musician is doing'...

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME09/Locked_into_the_Hotel_California.shtml
Here's pages and pages of theory on the framework of Hotel California- should blow your mind, read this and be afraid Cos, it's really dry and everything in this could be sequenced in MIDI, period. NO reference to anything but the very complex pattern of notes that sets the tone for the song. Without that, it's not Hotel California. But wait there's more...

Let's take a moment to look at that 'weedly wada wah... zwip!' moment. So far it's mostly straight, you could sequence that and not be too far off. You'd have to program in JUST the right pitch bend at the end for the zwip.

I was actually looking for a phrase-by-phrase breakdown because I wanted to know who did the following bit- surely Joe Walsh? Essentially, the 'zwip' is like lobbing a ball, and he CATCHES it with notes and sorta fumbles it or juggles it, and then they're on to other solo bits. But that instant where Walsh catches the 'zwip' is really fucking special, and really hard to transcribe accurately, because it's partly nontonal. THIS is where you start to hit the wall with 'theory' representing what's happening. Walsh must have heard the 'zwip', felt it was like something flying up to 'catch', and he hits a two note overbend. It's not resting on any fixed note, it continues to go up and over an arc, taking the motion of the 'zwip' and following it with a sound that is more dramatic and is continuing the trajectory of an imagined something set in motion by the 'zwip!'.

Not only that, but immediately after this 'catch', Walsh follows it with a series of bendy notes that are kinda like what you'd get if you were wiping your finger glancingly along a pitch-stripe- some of them really aren't resting on any one note. In particular there's a bit where you have two notes 'wiping' downward immediately followed by a pulloff and lower note. It's another shape in sound, a downward motion, but it's actually slower and blurrier than if you were to just play a series of descending notes. Sorta like 'bullet time': you get that big overbend (with nontonal stuff in the way the double-stop isn't perfectly in tune with itself- it's a BIG smear of sound, mainly) and then the motion of it is still arcing down in slow motion without losing the beat. The notes are in time, but the tonal center is sort of swooping down to join that next lick.

Now if I could play that shit I would BE Joe Walsh- but this is all part of what Cos is talking about. He can cite little details like 'this is a bend, this is a sort of scrunching noise, you can snap the string here instead of picking it' but what he's really after is way more postmodern. Zappa was into that which is why I'm hip to it- all that Varese stuff and interpreting noises as a form of expression and music.

The great thing is you can do this badly or well, just like with theory and constructing patterns of notes to make a mood- or totally go between the two and hit moods and feels that aren't present anywhere else- ever heard of the composer Harry Partch? I'm gonna post some Partch to liven it up in here.

But it is absolutely true that a lot of these guys, jazz or not, who are very good at theory and the music of notes, are fucking tonedeaf when it comes to the music of SOUNDS, and this is not a new thing, the music of sounds. Stockhausen was doing it. Varese. Stravinsky. Cos is just following that direction without knowing it, which is why he singled out one of the greatest moments in 'guitar as sound' in that Eagles solo, a moment that absolutely makes his point. You CAN'T HAVE that moment if you quantize it to the nearest pitch. It's not that you miss by a bit, you miss by a mile, the whole thing goes away unless you go totally nontonal to get all the pitch centres right, including the clash of the big overbend.

A similar case is the Jay Graydon solo for Peg by Steely Dan. Everybody they tried did weedly stuff that followed the basic song structure, and it sucked. Jay Graydon threw in a really languid, dirty, nontonal solo where the slowness of the pitch centers makes the whole thing work. It plays against the crispness of the backing music, and it's perfect. If you took the same notes and melodyned them, so they weren't totally slow and lagging, the solo would go away and it would suck. Perhaps because the rest of the song is so crisp that the contrast is necessary?

Cos can learn lots from theory, but some of you guys really need to take a breath and do exactly what you're telling Cos to do- open your mind, and learn something. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Aardy sided with me on this one. The theory is an indispensable part, and then there's everything else, and the everything else can make or break you. It's about what the song needs- not the score, the SONG, the extended noise that's supposed to make people go 'oooh' and buy it over and over for 40 years like the White Album.

It's just as easy for this 'tone' stuff to be fundamental to the song as the theory 'note' stuff, and discounting either is deadly. It's just that we can easily define if something is right in theory, but how the fuck can you prove what is the right slur? If the song needs a note to be sour, or aggressive, or slumping, how the fuck do you define what that is, because it's guaranteed not to be the autotuned beat detectived one- that's colorless and feel-less. When it has to be slightly wrong to be right, WHICH wrong does it have to be?

[Jasco]

THIS is where you start to hit the wall with 'theory' representing what's happening. Walsh must have heard the 'zwip',




So instead of theory, are you proposing the use of non-sense words like 'zwip' to describe and communicate musical events?




But it is absolutely true that a lot of these guys, jazz or not, who are very good at theory and the music of notes, are fucking tonedeaf when it comes to the music of SOUNDS



Could you be more specific to which guys you are referring?




If you took the same notes and melodyned them, so they weren't totally slow and lagging, the solo would go away and it would suck.



No shit.

What I want to know is how on earth do you equate theory to digital pitch and timing correction? Where have any of the proponents of theory said anything about digital time and pitch quantization being superior to a well played human performance? I'll tell you where. No where. It shows a gross misunderstanding of the nature of this debate to think that proponents of music theory somehow believe that things should be digitally perfect.



Cos can learn lots from theory, but some of you guys really need to take a breath and do exactly what you're telling Cos to do- open your mind, and learn something.



Again, could you be more specific as to whom you are referring?

In my personal experience, I've found that folks who have learned theory are usually more musically open-minded than those that haven't.



It's just that we can easily define if something is right in theory, but how the fuck can you prove what is the right slur? If the song needs a note to be sour, or aggressive, or slumping, how the fuck do you define what that is, because it's guaranteed not to be the autotuned beat detectived one- that's colorless and feel-less. When it has to be slightly wrong to be right, WHICH wrong does it have to be?


Again your comments show your misunderstanding of the subject of music theory. Music theory is not about defining 'right' or 'wrong'. Only your ear can do that. And 'right' or 'wrong' is also a subjective artistic decision made by each individual listener.

Music theory is about catagorizing sounds so you can have instant access to them, as well as being able to communicate those ideas to others who know the language.

[Trazan]

This is tone, right?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l1qCczGgSxw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l1qCczGgSxw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:very happy:

[chrisj]

Music theory is that system of abstraction that allows you to represent pitches and timing events.

If you say a 'minor third', barring the use of something like a Werckmeister temperament (*ahem* can we not write me off as unschooled plz?) you're talking about a fixed ratio of frequency to frequency. It can transpose anywhere and be the same ratio, it's not dependent on whether the mood is wistful or emo, it's gonna be a MINOR THIRD. This is abstraction.

If you say an eighth note at 120 bpm, that does not include information like 'this is a grace note so it should be more relaxed'- in fact if you tried to write timing information like that in standard music notation there would be a lot of flyspecks and 256th-rests flying around, or worse. Theory says an eighth note is a very specific timing event. Feel don't enter into it.

Don't EVEN start with the 'theory includes all that vibey goodness' stuff when you just wish it did, because if you ignore it your music sucks like Yngwie playing a boogie shuffle ;)

Theory IS that which can be reduced to mathematical constructs. It isn't art all by itself, it's like using a T-square and straightedge and protractor and the rules of perspective if you're rendering an illustration. It can take you to places a big artsy sumi-e ink brush will never, ever go, but not everybody is MC Escher. You're fooling yourself if you think theory is the magic bullet, it's just like the engine in your car- it's a limiting factor, you won't budge unless you have SOMETHING there however little you pay attention to it, and if you totally neglect it you WILL break down. It's got less to do with style, and how you drive.

If you're going to argue about how the toney textural stuff is part of theory, you're no longer talking about theory, you're talking about aesthetics (which would be fine) :)

[chrisj]

This is tone, right?
:very happy:

:lol:

Yeah, it's tone used for EVIL!

Don't tell me that would be as painful and craptastic without all that incredible wonky intonation, fucked-up timing, and the gruesome Bucketheadian mutated electroid pitchshift nonsense.

Transcribed and played by a competent person it would just be BAD.

When you include his TOOOOONE and vibe into the equation, it's dangerously hilarious :D

[Trazan]

Don't EVEN start with the 'theory includes all that vibey goodness' stuff when you just wish it did

No no, Chris. But it's an entirely different thing to say it excludes that vibey goodness. We both more or less use the same letters, but we speak different. And I'm guessing you still sound like a native American even though you can write? :Coolio:

[Trazan]

Hmmm...I'm going guess 27 pages.




Got theory to back that up?

[Moonrider]

This is tone, right?

:very happy:

You're a sadist aren't you?

[Cosmic Pig]

What I want to know is how on earth do you equate theory to digital pitch and timing correction? Where have any of the proponents of theory said anything about digital time and pitch quantization being superior to a well played human performance? I'll tell you where. No where. It shows a gross misunderstanding of the nature of this debate to think that proponents of music theory somehow believe that things should be digitally perfect.

That's the point, when you write it out it doesn't matter whether its been AT'd BD'd or whatever, the page doesn't change. So what does zwip look like on a staff anyway?

Nobody is saying theory is sterile any more than writing words is sterile. When reading words its pretty hard to figure out if the author has an english accent. James Earl Jones doing a rap tune will sound rather different from Larry the Cable Guy, but they'll use the same sheet to read from.

And of course, the clip has nothing to with tone. It was funny enough, and the guy really had some rockin stage moves, but efx and amp are a small part of tone.

In my personal experience, I've found that folks who have learned theory are usually more musically open-minded than those that haven't.

Ya right, thats why all the theory guys have been putting up examples haha. In my experience I've seen guys with and without theory who sucked turrible, and people with and without theory who are excellent players. I'll grant you that in the good player group more know theory than not, but it means nothing beyond dedication to playing.

Cos.

[otek]

This is tone, right? :very happy:

....and this is scale, right?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SWd0Xo9aHqs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SWd0Xo9aHqs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:D


otek

[mousdrvr]

I'll grant you that in the good player group more know theory than not, but it means nothing beyond dedication to playing.

Cos.

An excellent point Cos truly.


Chris,

Yeah I agree with the thrust of you post as well. But I think it goes to which components of any process may be meaningful discussed.

I don't think you can start discussing "Tone" without at least starting to build a vocabulary and a grammar. It may look like it's not an abstraction because it's new and maybe it feels like your freeing yourself from the constraints of a previous or related abstraction and can be suddenly more expressive, but still you are creating new boundaries even if they are very useful ones.

I'm down with the whole "The way which may be spoken is not the true way" deal at least as far as a non-enlightened, slouching along schlub can be. However, in my experience, if you ask someone who really has it together in any art, how to walk the path. They always come back with some variation of chop wood cary water. I think this is very telling and I really believe that if anyone with any aptitude at all sat down at an instrument and played for 10,000 hours, well they're gonna have something to say AND they will have a HUGE body of personal abstractions regarding the application of their art. The thing is that most of those are, not surprisingly, going to bear a striking resemblance to the abstractions and epiphanies of all the other folks who have sat down and played for 10,000 hours.

At one point in Western literature, folks made a big distinction between cognitive and connotative reasoning, with both being considered valid.

I think to some extent that may have been the real issue behind this thread. With the "Theory" proponents being told that they we're in mortal danger of unbalancing themselves in the direction of the cognitive and loosing the connotive meaning of their practice. That danger may be real for some folks I don't know. All I can say with any certainty is that for me personally it's not.

I had a really great voice coach tell me once that, a singer is NOT responsible for trying to convey emotion. Of course if they are to succeed they must convey it, but this cat's point was that they don't have to try. He said Bring your chords together cleanly, breath naturally, speak the lyric clearly, and honor the composition. If you do that, you and all the emotion you've ever felt will simply come pouring out. You won't be able to stop it

For me this seems to be the case. I can't judge the subjective quality of my work, it's not my job. But I can tell you that the more I follow those guidelines the more folks seem to respond positively to my shit.

Thinking about how I'm really feeling it is always the thing I do just before I crash and burn. Your experience and Cos' may be completely different.


Oh and Otek, FWIW man I never ignore your posts:Thumbsup:


-mous

[gitarted]

What I'm seeing here is Cos is missing the forest because of the trees in front of him.

Say you just hooked up with some doods who don't speak english well, and they need you to solo over some progression.

you ask them what key is it in? they understand english enough to say it's in G.

OK is that Gmaj or Gmi? But, at this point they arent good enough with their english to understand you. so they start playing.
...and you start to solo in Gmi and it's way the fuck out of key.

This is where the knowledge of theory would be a life saver.
at this point you would be searching to find the key center and sounding like you just picked up the instrument yesterday.

In the above example, theory would tell you that you need to play in Gmaj over this progression. or you could play in the relative minor key of Emi (aolian) and all of the resulting modes of the major scale.

That little bit of knowledge/ theory would allow you to be able to instantly know where to play all over the neck in key.

This has nothing what so ever to do with how fast your playing,
or what picking technique you may choose to use at any given time, or tone.

It is more like (for lack of a better example) a road map. You may choose the obscure route to get from point A to point B if you already understand the normal route. but if you don't, you will only find your way there by luck or by turning down the wrong streets (and you could end up in the middle of 'crack alley' and end up getting your car jacked)

Knowledge of theory would make this second nature. You wouldn't even need to think about it...
would knowing theory make you play with less feeling? absolutely NOT.

d

[eagan]

Very simple, straightforward, to the basic point, and sensible, D.

That will never work here.


JLE

[vocalnick]

Some years ago in my very early guitar days (I think I'd just mastered barre chords and earned my "electric guitar licence" in grade 7 at school :grin: ) I had the epiphany that moving my blues scale down toward the nut by three frets moved me from minor to major, like Gitarted was talking about there. It was great - it basically felt like I'd instantly doubled my knowledge, because all of those "cool angry minor sounding" licks I'd been earnestly hunkered down learning suddenly worked for the happy songs too.

It was just an early example of many little discoveries that have all connected to form what I'd now call a "vaguely acceptable" understanding of musical theory, although it didn't feel like it at the time. By "theory" I don't mean writing or reading notation - the little knowledge of that language that I picked up in school has all-but atrophied by now. I just mean the way notes work together. The language of music.

And I still can (and do) make the guitar go 'zwip' when I feel like it.

[Eddie G]

I think that Monkey Gang tune is great.


lots of heavy theory behind it.



I believe that it's in A Simian mode.


throw a solo on it Cos, go 'head.



Eddie

[bbkong]

BB, if you're not gonna try I'm not playing anymore.

Try what?

Glad you found it entertaining, but go ahead, name the key.

Clue: you'll need some theory.

And you'll need the key to play on that track or you'll just sound incoherent.

[Moonrider]

....and this is scale, right?


I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[lambro]

"MIND YOUR OWN BBQ BUSINESS!"

egg-cellent BB

[Eddie G]

Try what?

Glad you found it entertaining, but go ahead, name the key.

Clue: you'll need some theory.

And you'll need the key to play on that track or you'll just sound incoherent.


He'll need the key and a grasp of the time signature.


:D


Eddie

[bbkong]

He'll need the key and a grasp of the time signature.



Another clue: it adds up to more than ten fingers.

[Cosmic Pig]

Ha BB... the key of shit flat with an astonished 5th that anybody would remotely care what key shit is.

If thats your example I win. All bow before the one who kicked BB's ass.

Buuut fuck all that, I'll just start repeating myself. Once you have a basic knowledge your better off learning to say something with the basics than learning theory.

I'll aslo add, for every good player I know who knows theory I know another one who can't play 12 bar without a chart, and they suck bad when they do have a chart. Theory won't make you a better player, playing will.

Whee.

Cos.

[bbkong]

Ha BB... the key of shit flat with an astonished 5th that anybody would remotely care what key shit is.



And that summarily proves my point. Without theory you don't have the tools to find your ass with two hands, rendering yourself basically useless outside of your precious 12 bar and not very flexible within it.

Thank you for finishing my job. My work here is complete.

[dwoz]

Every time I think I've made my last post on this thread, there's just something that comes up I feel compelled to comment on.



Cos, you basically just described about 98% of all pop music since the days of Bill Haley. The "scale following the chord pattern" is simply about playing melodies inside the given boundaries of the chords.

otek


otek, I'll take your disagree and raise you a rebuttal.

Actually, when you get right to the root of it (pun intended)...the CHORDS are built off the scales, not the other way around.

Harmony is really about melodies (lines) running through the universe of probabilities.

Just in case you missed the coda, the universe is made up of an OCTAVE of dimensions:

Dimension 0: the singularity...the "point".

Dimension 1: the movement of the point ...a "line".

Dimension 2: the movement of the line through the plane...a "surface".

Dimension 3: the movement of the surface through a space...a "volume".

Dimension 4: the movement of the volume through time...an "existence".

Dimension 5: the movement of an existence through all probabilities...

and Dimension 6: the movement of a set of probabilities through the realm of all possibilities...

and the octave, the movement of the realm of all possibilities...which looks like the singularity in the NEXT universe...



So, bringing this back to music (as above, so below)...a note is a point....a note in time is a line...a sequence of notes is a plane...a stack of notes together (chord) is a volume...a movement of chords in time is, well, a Movement...a movement of a movement through all probabilities is a tonality...a movement of a tonality through all possibilities is a context.

dwoz

[gitarted]

otek, I'll take your disagree and raise you a rebuttal.

Actually, when you get right to the root of it (pun intended)...the CHORDS are built off the scales, not the other way around.

Harmony is really about melodies (lines) running through the universe of probabilities.

Just in case you missed the coda, the universe is made up of an OCTAVE of dimensions:

Dimension 0: the singularity...the "point".

Dimension 1: the movement of the point ...a "line".

Dimension 2: the movement of the line through the plane...a "surface".

Dimension 3: the movement of the surface through a space...a "volume".

Dimension 4: the movement of the volume through time...an "existence".

Dimension 5: the movement of an existence through all probabilities...

and Dimension 6: the movement of a set of probabilities through the realm of all possibilities...

and the octave, the movement of the realm of all possibilities...which looks like the singularity in the NEXT universe...



So, bringing this back to music (as above, so below)...a note is a point....a note in time is a line...a sequence of notes is a plane...a stack of notes together (chord) is a volume...a movement of chords in time is, well, a Movement...a movement of a movement through all probabilities is a tonality...a movement of a tonality through all possibilities is a context.

dwoz

Wow!

That is beautiful.

[Cosmic Pig]

And that summarily proves my point. Without theory you don't have the tools to find your ass with two hands, rendering yourself basically useless outside of your precious 12 bar and not very flexible within it.

Thank you for finishing my job. My work here is complete.

Judging by that example you have definitely found your ass with both hands.

Dwoz, that was pretty cool. Now can you take it from there to running through the jungle with CCR? Need to connect the movement through all possibilities to emotion somehow.

Cos.

[lambro]

to willfully impose serious limitations on ones development
in any realm of music (or art or science) from tone to technique to theory is rooted in either laziness, lack of curiosity, low mental capacity, delusional inflations of self, or a psychological refusal to do work

To flat out say "I will not learn theory" is the same as "I will not learn how to intonnate a bend" or I will not investigate different amp circuits for my playing style" its all the same, a refusal to grow.

outside of the few savants who can bypass the "work" needed to get to respectable levels of proficiency, all of us need to do the work and keep the work alive to grow as musicians

....unless stagnation is the goal, which goes to my earlier post

ask yourself what you are doing to further your craft



PS: Otek, awesome post re the Octave.

[st robert]

...
Dimension 5: the movement of an existence through all probabilities...

and Dimension 6: the movement of a set of probabilities through the realm of all possibilities...

and the octave, the movement of the realm of all possibilities...which looks like the singularity in the NEXT universe...

dwoz

wait one faaking minute here....

what aboot dimension 7?

you are spouting whole tone truths. don't confuse the issue with alternate scalic dogma...

sheesh.

i read the words on these pages and alternately (in no particular order) roll my eyes, glaze over, fall asleep, giggle, furrow my brow in disbelief.

could we not say here that it is aboot knowing your audience? this may have been touched on, already, but the poor pig is in the equivalent role as a kindergarten substitute student teacher. he plays simple lines, says simple things, speaks slowly and uses small words, but really means them, which is vital. if the little bastards smell disingenuity, yer fucked.

we are standing in the teacher's lounge drinking our whiskey coffees and smoking lucky strikes, speaking of politics and rocket surgery and in comes the poor pig with his kindergarten rhetoric.

we raise our eyebrows.

we scoff at the poor pig.

the pig is wondering what the fucking problem could be. it all works real well in class. then everybody more or less at once gets that kindergarten style and vocabulary can be limiting in the world of rocket surgery and begins to attempt to illuminate the poor pig with this shiny bit of helpfullness. this pisses pig off because, like the idea of "up" is something that can be explained to an ant, the ant figures it doesn't need it. it kinda just knows north, south east, west (NSEW) and is cool with it. and this pig, like the ant, when "up" gets thrust upon it by outside sources of alternate scalic tonality, it would have done well to learn "up" and it's partner "down" in order to return to a more comfortable NSEW place. of course "up" doesn't matter to the pig right now. up has no place in kindergarten. we pound the "up" issue further to increased resistance and NSEW double speak by the pig who is an ant that doesn't want to be burdened with all this three dimensional jazz. all he wants to do is drag a dead grasshopper across the driveway and into the nest.

with feeling and tone.

in kindergarten.

or something.


look, somebody has to be a kindergarten substitute teacher, and i have no doubt that the pig is as effective as he thinks he is in that realm.

it's where he lives.

sure, he has trouble communicating with higher education types. no biggie, they just charge him more and laugh at him behind his back. as long as he never turns around or goes to college with that shit, he's golden.














oh yeah: dimension 7:


the movement and stasis of the realm of possible and impossible probabilities and improbabilities......







transcendentally played thru a pod with rusty jacks.

[eagan]

Big fun for Cos trying to find new territory by creating a hybrid of yer basic net troll and reliving being 8 years old on the playground.

Ha BB... the key of shit flat with an astonished 5th that anybody would remotely care what key shit is.

If thats your example I win. All bow before the one who kicked BB's ass.

Allow me to edit.


It doesn't matter cuz that's like all weird and icky and I wouldn't play that cuz it's stooopid and you're a big poopy face so there. I win! I win!


Yeah, you sure showed him, didn't you.

Buuut fuck all that, I'll just start repeating myself.

What, it will start to make sense the tenth time around?

Once you have a basic knowledge your better off learning to say something with the basics than learning theory.

Whoa, that's like, totally like, whoa, dude. Just like, all like, awesome, 'n stuff. That's like, really sayin' stuff about all that stuff, that, like, you know, you said about that stuff, and then stuff other dude said. Totally.

You know what I'm sayin'?


So. Bubba put a test question to you.

There's a tune.

It's not a popular standard that you've had the chance to hack your way through by trial and error 5000 times until you find the places to put your fingers that make notes that work.

It's unconventional. It isn't 12 bar I-IV-V or something in 4/4. It doesn't match any of the stuff you've hacked your way through by trial and error or learned by rote. You have to actually listen and figure out what's going on and find the tonal and rhythmic lay of the land.

So.

What's the key?


JLE

[dwoz]

wait one faaking minute here....

what aboot dimension 7?

you are spouting whole tone truths. don't confuse the issue with alternate scalic dogma...



well, I'm also a programmer, so I think in terms of zero-based indices...there's seven steps ...0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6...


....and the movement of all possibilities is INFINITY, which is just "do" in the next octave (the singularity in the next octave)

dwoz