Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by jsj@agtechnet.com:

What you aren't seeing on those countless episodes of 'Behind the Music' are the years and years of those guys honing their chops on theory and practicing. The Edge didn't/doesn't practice... I'm not buying it! I read the same article recently and it opens stating that he was rehearsing for the upcoming tour.

 

Like it or not, everyone knows theory.

 

I've seen this stated several times in this thread now and I think it's kind of funny. It's kind of like saying "Well, birds can fly, so that must mean they know the laws of aerodynamics, whether they like it or not." Nobody needs to explain the principles of aerodynamics to a bird, because he just flies. Does that make him ignorant about flying? No, the bird knows plenty of things about the conditions under which he can fly and what will happen if he changes the angle of his wings. He may even understand this more intimately than the average airplane pilot. That still doesn't mean he knows the "laws of aerodynamics" as we've defined them or could recite them back to you (if he could talk). How you've defined those laws simply isn't very relevant to him.

 

--Lee

[rosespappy]

So Lee, out of curiosity, are you inferring that instinctive natural abilities can not be reasonably replicated by science? Interesting. Again it is almost as though the natural, requires the learned, for descriptive purposes only. Maybe, The younger Mozart, while choking on theory, wrote some of the most decadent (in his theorist Fathers view) pieces in history.Many of the masses he wrote contained tunes that had historically been extremely melancholy in nature. He turned the Alleluia into A! le! lu! Ya!!! If his timing had been off by fifty years he'd a been burned at the stake! The word theory is deceptive. It means an abstract approximation based upon an obsrved phenomenon. Seems as though somewhere along the line we mistook it for the authority figure, the musical last word if you will. When it comes to finger-picking patterns and tricky acoustic sounds I can manage better than an abstract approximation. Lead work......... I guess I'm a theorist on that element of our instrument.

Rick

[KHAN]

To me, theory just means knowing what to call something you knew sounded right all the long. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/hippy.gif

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

I remember a recent interview with Edge in the trades where he said... I never practice... Don't like to... Never did!

 

Ya think the kids read THAT and think practice is important?

 

Kids don't have the maturity to grasp the intent of that; actually these days, few adults.

 

Edge doesn't "practice guitar". From what I know, I believe he did actually have some formal piano lessons at some time, and does know a little theory.

 

HOWEVER, what kids don't get is that "theory" can be aquired through experience in some cases. U2 is another one of those statistically impossible Beatles situations: they all grew up together, playing together constantly.

 

Kids take that statement to mean he just picks up the guitar, and "boom" out comes "Sunday Bloody Sunday" complete, ready to go.

 

 

They don't realize how much time is put into a pro band, even one where the musicians in the band have "marginal" chops. Additionally, there's aces in the hand: Larry Mullen Jr. played in drum line at school, and also a drum corp I believe. This has obviously influenced his playing greatly; a very integral part of U2's style and sound. So it's not as if the band is nothing but stilted wannbe's; the Edge knows more than is being credited, and Mullen is fairly schooled. Together that makes music, as opposed to a band of ignorant punk kids that "don't need to know anything, man".

 

But kids are stupid these days, and most adults, so whatever.

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[fantasticsound]

To me, theory just means knowing what to call something you knew sounded right all the long.

 

Partly, Khan. The yin to that yang is with theory, you can visualize where to go next, and with a great deal of certainty what the result will be.

 

Imagine a path. Anyone can walk a path. But the experienced hiker sees clues as to what to expect on a given path. One may lead up, above the frost line. Another may lead off toward a 3 sided canyon. Dead end. Yet another crosses a river. All interesting walks, but understanding the terrain, weather conditions, and direction give you an advantage when deciding which path to choose. You can even choose to hit a dead end. At least you see it coming! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif An understanding of music theory is akin to that.

 

Once again, whether they be all mouth and no music, or all feel and little variation, they're both jerks if they think they're better than you or me for being more to the other side. Let's just ignore 'em and make music the way we know how.

 

Lee - Just to clarify, I was lifting the "I hate judgemental people" line from an old comic button/bumper sticker. It's an oxymoronic statement, or do you just find it funny? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Neil

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by strat0124:

Having said that, intuitive players are not necessarily taught, some may have it, but I don't think there's a large percentage who do.

 

I rarely if ever analyze what I'm playing.

 

Confession:

 

I don't do what I teach people in guitar lessons.

 

Never have. Personally - music theory is just a way of describing things I already know to other people. People have differing amounts of built-in intuition about how things work. Some people, if you show them a scale, will naturally start resolving things; others, if you show them the concept, they'll do it. Others will, but only in regimented specialized situations you explain to them. Still others won't even hear it at all. Some won't be able to rhytmically do anything.

 

Often I have to sit and cogitate for a moment so I can come up with a coherent explanation/translation in musical terms something I take completely for granted; in this respect I have become more aware of aspects of my playing which opens creative doors intellectually, which is how theory is a positive thing for me. The amusing thing is how long it takes to explain a concept that lasts for an *instant*...

 

 

Intuitive ability DOES EXIST. There is one girl I teach who is about 14 who I can tell hears with a finer sense of rhythm than my other students, picks things up faster, naturally understands stuff fairly quickly. She can discern rhythmic pushes and pulls that a lot of guys I know that have been playing for longer than I have can't hear. She's been playing for about a year and a half now. If she was male, and growing up during the late 80's, she would have been a "hot guitarist"....

 

Now and then.. maybe once a year... a get some poor sod who has no rhythm at all - *at all*, and a confused sense of pitch: they're not really sure if something is rising or falling in pitch. I once had a guy that I figured out *didn't hear pitch change *at all**: he didn't grasp "higher" or "lower" in pitch, literally. It just wasn't there. There are differing degrees of rhythmic difficulty - "Beat blindness" I call it, where some people can't tell a triplet from a straight accent on certain beats, and others that are incapable of keeping time. Those I can fix by teaching; the pitch "blindness" I was beaten on, I had to refund the guy's money, I couldn't help him.

 

 

BACK ON THE MAIN ROAD NOW

 

So when I play, I'm in a very abstract state of mind, kind of like dreaming. The less I'm "folding space" the more conscious I am of theory, to my musical detriment. As far as I'm concerned you should NEVER be thinking about theory while playing, it should be totally absorbed as a reflex. The variables involved in improvising a solo are so chaotic after the initial few notes that you can be completely intellectually aware of every note you play at a very deep level; otherwise you may as well not "solo" and just "compose". The subscious mind has much much more horsepower; sublimating what is learned consciously into the animal mind is *my* goal...

 

I can *hear* how something works, if I physically learn it I want *that* to be the "name" for the concept - the *impression* of my memory of that specific event, not "playing staggered 16th string skipped flat 9 arpeggio over a V in a I V change". The "name" of the concept is the memory of where I heard it happen first[/b]. I "practice" by listening to music. Then if I want to create that effect I simply "make it so".

 

The downside to this is that it's never perfect. I'll make mistakes. On the other hand maybe I'm going to play some things that are novel and unique. Later on I can sit down and go "hmmm... that was for an instant the sound of raising the 2nd over iii briefly after coming off of IV" or some such. If it's idiotmatic enough that will allow me to teach it to someone else. But if I'm in a bad, non-musical mood I find myself thinking music theory; as far as I'm concerned that's non-optimum, and is limiting.

 

But to be honest - I don't know why people need to be shown concepts when they can hear it happening anyhow. If you can hear it in your head why does it need to be explained? To me it's like teaching someone how to construct sentences so they can write what they've read in a book, when they can see the sentences in their head already: "this is a noun; this is a verb; this is a period". Asking if a note fits is like asking "The cat ran down the road? Or the road cat the ran?".... Or actually, it would seem for some people "aND kdfjieu is *&5djn gnopsdkjfh Bob". What about the person who can improvise whistling along to a song who doesn't even know what a note is? It's in everyone to differing degrees, and I think ultimately *that* is the true way of improvising: but I think only a few people on the planet really do it that way, and it's easy to hear (Beck, Hendrix, for example).

 

I'd better stop here since I've probably just managed to alienate both the pro-theory group and the anti-theory camp as well... I'd better delete this in the morning but I've already written a novel, so...

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[fantasticsound]

aND kdfjieu is *&5djn gnopsdkjfh Bob

 

And I thought I was the only one who was thinking this!

 

Incidentally, your analogy proves the opposite point. If you've ever looked at the ramblings on these posts, you've seen far better writing than mine. I've been reading for about 30 years and have yet to figure out how to be concise. (Is that an AMEN from the cheap seats?) So you DO learn writing theory. At least, some of you posters have! Not me. I'll continue to use past participles and dangling modifiers incorrectly! Actually, I have no idea if you CAN use those in a correct manner.

 

Thanks for putting it in words I can REALLY understand, Chip:

 

aND kdfjieu is *&5djn gnopsdkjfh Bob

 

Neil

 

This message has been edited by fantasticsound on 04-25-2001 at 02:12 AM

[strat0124]

Chip I think you said it right, in a nutshell, you can either hear it or you can't. That inherent ability is rare. I was blessed with an ear, and used to memorize my trombone parts in high school rather than dribble through the pages and pages of music. What's even rarer, is to find a band where every single member has that ability. I have been in two bands like that in my lifetime. It's magic. As the only guitarist in a three piece band, I am always in hopes that the other guys "hear" where I'm goin and follow, accent, and fill to complete that groove.

I imagine in your teaching profession, it's easy to tell in short order who's got the ear, and who doesn't. I used to teach electronics and could tell who got it or not as well. I also hear some of the big names and wonder why they picked the material or arrangement they did, because in my head I hear them doing way better stuff for the talent they possess. Case in point, Melissa Etheridge and Joan Osborne. If they could get some lean alley cat guitarist, and a kicking little combo, dip into some material that's not so safe sounding...they both would be WAY better. So I imagine hearing this young lady play with that inner "ear", you would love to direct her in the right direction and see this catepillar evolve. I have to hand it to any teacher dealing with all that frustration.

So yeah, learn theory, but learn to listen is what I hear from most folks here......I agree.

[Lee Flier]

Chip, I think you totally nailed it! And I probably should've figured you would; seeing as you're a teacher, you see the whole gamut of people who really NEED to have theory explained to them vs. those who don't.

 

Another thing I think is worth mentioning is that the WAY theory is taught and learned probably has a profound influence on one's playing. We all know that our fingers develop a "muscle memory" where we instinctively go to certain patterns when improvising. They're usually patterns that we fell into early on in our playing or, in some cases, after we've been playing for awhile and then go to school to learn theory and learn new habits.

 

If your emphasis is on theory, you probably had a teacher who gave you exercises on scales, chord progressions, etc. If you practice those for hours on end, that is most definitely going to affect the way you play. If you're improvising and the majority of your practice time was spent on scales and arpeggios, that's what's most likely to come out unless you put a lot of effort into counteracting that. If you practice more from your "mind's ear", hearing something in your head and trying to work out how to play it, you will end up playing in a different way.

 

For the first 10 years that I played, I practiced a ton. Averaged 8 hours a day. But for the first couple of years I did no scales at all. I only ever practiced scales when I took the aforementioned theory lessons for a couple of months, and I quickly realized that it wasn't really serving the way I wanted to play. The way I would normally practice (and still do), was to have a chord book in front of me and a turntable. I would hear a piece of music, whether on the turntable or in my own head, and try to play it. If I got stuck I'd check with the chord book. If what I was trying to play had some fast licks in it, I'd play those particular licks over and over until I got them. Of course, knowing those licks and chords would help me to learn the next one faster, and so on.

 

I learned really quickly that way. I was really motivated because everything I was learning was "real" and it was music I really dug. Of course over time I couldn't help but notice that there were always certain patterns of chords. I could "hear" when something resolved, even though I didn't know the word "resolve". I knew that playing a B minor in the key of D was the same thing as playing an E minor in the key of G, even though I didn't know why. And like Chip, I think if you can hear it you don't really need it explained, except maybe so you can know the terminology to communicate it to others. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[dj3]

Lee,

 

I think you're onto it in your last paragraph there. People learn in as many ways as there are stars in the heavens. We can only respond with what works for us.

 

Like you, I practised 8 hours a day for years and theory helped me train my ears and understand where cats like Parker were coming from. I don't play like that anymore, but that knowledge rests comfortably in every note I play.

 

I think that theory can HELP you to become more versatile, more quickly if you are a mortal. Do you have to study? I did, but not everyone does. Music is a language, there are many levels of complexity. There is no 'one size fits all' option. Some people say 'blues in C' while others will give you the chart.

 

As they say, I wish I knew what I know now when I was younger.

 

dave

[coyote]

This is NOT correct. I started my musical life as a spastic kid w/ a pair of sticks and an angled practice pad. It took months to get through BreezEasy#1. And I certainly didn't know a Bb from a D (or from an A# for that matter )

 

Over the past 30 years I have LEARNED time. And rhythm. And complex time. And simple harmony. And relative pitch. And classical & jazz theory. And perfect pitch!!

 

It CAN be learned, which also means it can be taught. The person who "hears it" before any training has an obvious advantage. But that "you hear it or you don't" attitude is dangerous. There are indeed people who will NEVER hear it, but too many are written off who could actually learn these skills if their teachers were of any use.

 

 

Originally posted by strat0124:

Chip I think you said it right, in a nutshell, you can either hear it or you can't.

[strat0124]

Originally posted by coyote:

[Over the past 30 years I have LEARNED time. And rhythm. And complex time. And simple harmony. And relative pitch. And classical & jazz theory. And perfect pitch!! It CAN be learned, which also means it can be taught. The person who "hears it" before any training has an obvious advantage. But that "you hear it or you don't" attitude is dangerous. There are indeed people who will NEVER hear it, but too many are written off who could actually learn these skills if their teachers were of any use. /B]

 

Coyote, my remarks were general, in fact if Ear Training were a prerequisite or companion for any lessons, I think the lesson would be a bit easier after their completion. But you were absolutely right......some will NEVER hear it. I don't know how dangerous that is though. : )

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by coyote:

hear it or you don't" attitude is dangerous. There are indeed people who will NEVER hear it, but too many are written off who could actually learn these skills if their teachers were of any use.

 

He's right, you know. I'm just a bozo....

 

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Another thing I think is worth mentioning is that the WAY theory is taught and learned probably has a profound influence on one's playing.

 

I have no rigid methodology.

 

Upon reading Bruce Lee's "The Tao of Jeet Kun Do" I realize I have a similar philosophy regarding music: everybody has an optimal path to follow.

 

Some people are really sponge like in their rapt ability to absorb theoretical knowledge. It is to their benefit for me to give them as much as they can swallow - but perhaps try to temper it by showing how it can relate to instantaneous emotions, maybe.

 

Then there's the hyper active kid I teach on Saturdays. Can't sit still. No focus at all. The trick there is optimize what he's *capable* of learning. Little windows of opportunity arise. He's NOT going to learn his diatonic scale positions, at least not for a few years. It's just not going to happen.

 

HOWEVER -

I can show him how to play "Malaguena" and he can dram away - HARD - on those three chords and sound like he's doing something. He sits there and spazzes out for a few minutes while I do a bunch of zippy flamenco things over E, F and G.

 

The he's clear minded for about 2 minutes and I slip something in, or try to, that's useful. Yesterday it was "Theme For the Addition Deficit Disorder Circus" (it helps if you have a snappy name for things...), a roly-poly flat five "Clown Music" thingy that's simple to play - but requires you to use the fingers on the right hand. Takes about a minute to demonstrate and explain; he gets it, and spazzes out with that for awhile.

 

 

BUT - he's learned a little bit about how to use his right hand in a pseudo-classical manner. He's learned that "circus music" involves flat five sounds - even though he's yet to learn the terminology, he now has a place card as a referance.

 

 

So to him, for now, "theory" means if he hears "circus music" on tv he thinks "that sounds like that thing Chip showed me in a guitar lesson that time". Not as exacting as "a flat five ostinato pattern with the bass alternating in an inverted perfect fifth, modulated in random chromaticism", but never the less it is *thinking about music*.

 

Which is the point, I think.

 

Is it Heinlein that wrote "What means "hello", stranger?"? Learning a vocabulary to think about music is the sole purpose of music *theory* IMO, the terms themselves not important. Some people naturally think music, some people need the vocabulary to for the cognitive "sentences". Regardless, it doesn't hurt unless the vocabulary becomes the point to it.

 

Hmm. Ironically, I can add that a problem arises when the vocabulary *appears* to supercede the intent of the composition. There is a grey area where some people will perceive vocabulary to be a "display", just as the use of certain more elaborate musical concepts can be heard as "overly complex". While some people may have to deliberately contemplate altering or increasing one's vocabulary/music theory to demonstrate it's existence, other people may do it reflexively and be seen as "showing off" or pretentious.

 

Now *why* would I find that such an appropriate analogy?

 

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[psychoduck]

Originally posted by Jimmy James:

You don't have to know how to read music to understand theory. You don't have to understand ALL there is to theory to understand theory. All you need to understand is what you need to communicate to other musicians, and what you need to help you play better in your prefered style. That could be very little or a lot. It's all relative.

 

Robben Ford is a good example. He can't read a note. He's an ear player essentially. But he knows enough theory to explain chord changes, intervals, and what he needs to know to communicate his ideas to someone with more advanced theory.

 

It's not an all or nothing proposition. You only need what you need. And this is the guy who traded 8s with Miles Davis.

 

 

One correction, Robben can read music, and write it out as well. I saw him do it first hand.

 

psychoduck

[Tedster]

Welcome to the forum, Psychoduck!

[Steve LeBlanc]

I didn't read this whole thread because it seemed kinda redundant.

 

I just want to say that if as a musician you're happy just playing Rock n Roll...you've done a disservice to the very fabric of what music is. Let's face it Rock (straight ahead) as an artform is dead, it's all been done. In fact, I have problems calling anyone who limits themselves to one style a "musician."

 

So what motivates rockers to play music anyway? Is it still just Sex and Drugs? Is it that great a feeling to say you sound like "What's his Name"?

 

I also wanted to add that BB King certainly knew theory better than your average blues/rock guitarist...

 

My dad couldn't read music well because he had really bad eyesight...he played mostly by ear but it didn't stop him from learning fat jazz chords and melodic approaches that went beyond pentatonics.

 

I can't get my nephew to go to school for music...he could be a genius musician but he's made a choice to be an actor (Punk Rocker).

 

I'm really sorry if I pissed anyone off, many of you will strongly disagree with me but it's how I feel

 

 

 

This message has been edited by Steve LeBlanc on 06-12-2001 at 06:32 PM

[Tedster]

Steve...

 

I agree with you in a perverse sort of way. I play mainly rock...but other styles as well. The thing is to keep yourself interested, you've got to keep learning..

 

I live in an area where there are a bunch of old geezers who play "country"...or "bluegrass". Now, these old timers are by NO means Bill Monroe or Earl Scruggs. They have fun, I suppose, but none of 'em know any more than a G, C, and D chord (maybe an Am or Em rarely). If they play in A, they capo on the second fret and play in G. I went and sat in a couple of times just for the heck of it. I did something that had a Bm in it. You'd have thought I asked 'em to play some complex jazz chord! None of 'em (and they'd all surely been playing for probably at least 50 years apiece) knew how to play a Bm!!!

 

Now, to clarify, you've never seen so many nice old Martins in your life. Well, maybe you have...but, I can't imagine these guys HAVING TO HAVE a Martin, and then not having enough respect for it to limit themselves to three chords!!! And, you talk about a dying art form, if no one under the age of 65 is playing this music, it'll be dead before long.

[Steve LeBlanc]

And, you talk about a dying art form, if no one under the age of 65 is playing this music, it'll be dead before long.

 

Yeah but there are also a lot of Bluegrass players who push themselves to try new stuff all the time...Bela Fleck for example...believe it or not he plays authentic bluegrass as good as anyone.

 

I play a lot of rock but often challenge myself to do more than just the same ole 3-4 chords...and if I do stick to one chord I like to think rhythmically I'm doing something with that chord that is dancable and even progressive.

 

I guess my post is a reaction to those who think you can stop progressing at some point and just be happy playing different versions of songs that were on the radio in 1976...add new words and a different vocal inflection, it's still "Cat Scratch Fever" http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Never get complacent...I would argue you're not being a musician anymore when you are completely happy and satisfied with everything you play.

[Tedster]

I would reckon Bela could play damn near anything he wanted. That is some awesome stuff.

 

To quote Ecclesiastes, Pete Seeger, and The Byrds..."A time to every purpose"...

 

There's a time to be satisfied with certain areas of what you do, perhaps playing, so you can concentrate on something else, say songwriting. And then around the circle, until you come back to being frustrated with your playing and learn something new...

 

BTW...I just wrote this new song, it goes "Dog Bite Fever...nah nah nahhhh, she give me dog bite fever...nah nah nahhhh..." Pretty cool, huh? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc:

I just want to say that if as a musician you're happy just playing Rock n Roll...you've done a disservice to the very fabric of what music is.

 

Oh really? And why is that?

 

Let's face it Rock (straight ahead) as an artform is dead, it's all been done.

 

Oh really? So you can get inside the minds of every rock musician and say with authority that none of them could possibly be thinking of anything new?

 

And what is an "art form"? How is rock as an "art form" any different from just... rock?

 

In fact, I have problems calling anyone who limits themselves to one style a "musician."

 

Damn! My cousin retired a couple of years ago from his 1st violin chair in the Boston Symphony, which he held for over 40 years, and he still plays in a chamber quartet. He's never played anything but classical in his life. He'll be really disappointed when I tell him you have a problem acknowledging that he's a "musician".

 

So what motivates rockers to play music anyway?

 

Same thing that (hopefully) motivates anybody else: because we love it. Because listening to it and playing it puts a great big shit eatin' grin across our faces in a way that nothing else will.

 

Is there some other motivation that you would deem more acceptable?

 

Is it still just Sex and Drugs?

 

No, and for me, it never has been.

 

My dad couldn't read music well because he had really bad eyesight...he played mostly by ear but it didn't stop him from learning fat jazz chords and melodic approaches that went beyond pentatonics.

 

Ummmm well I guess you haven't read this thread because it's already been said several times that LOTS of players learn "jazz chords" and such even though they play by ear. Lack of formal training doesn't necessarily preclude someone from playing more complex music.

 

Also, it has been said several times here that it does not inherently kill music to put technical limitations on it. The fact that a piece of music doesn't go "beyond pentatonics" doesn't make it arbitrarily dead after a few years, any more than a true artist is limited by only having the primary colors in his palette. In fact many artists make it a POINT to limit themselves technically and come up with endless subtle variations within those limitations. And lots of viewers who are dazzled by techical complexity miss the point, just like musicians who are dazzled by technical complexity miss the point of straight ahead rock, traditional tribal music, folk music and other "limited" forms.

 

If you don't like straight ahead rock, that's your prerogative and your taste of course, but your ideas about it being such a limited or dead art form in general are totally wrong.

 

--Lee

[fantasticsound]

Wow! That's hot! (roasting marshmallows on the previous thread.) I just love smores! Thanks Lee... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

------------------

Neil

 

Reality: A few moments of lucidity surrounded by insanity.

[strat0124]

Lee.....thanks for your last....seems like roots rockers are always made out to be less than proficient musicians. Somehow some folks forget about the groove, or don't understand it. I personally.....remember I said personally, think that you can be a @#$%ing whiz at ripping out every major scale, with blinding speed, but if you ain't got some groove goin on.....should I say more???

I liken it to the visuals alot of folks have of Bluegrass musicians....you know the "Deliverance" movie with the guy on the porch playing banjo....and the fact is not many guitarists of any other genre could keep up with these guys.

My opinions......and mine alone. Now just where is my spandex, torn jeans, and banjo????

[Tedster]

I don't think that our friend Steve was saying "Everyone who plays rock is a moron". Well, maybe he was...but I took it as "Use the opportunity to broaden yourself".

 

Strat, I wasn't dissing true bluegrass players...I was dissing (sort of, I'll explain in a minute)...these old guys around here. If you heard 'em, you wouldn't be stunned by their flatpicking chops. You'd either fall asleep or head for the door. What bothers me about these old guys is their attitude...an attitude like Steve describes...so set in their ways they won't even bother to learn a new chord...even if it is something like a Bm. "That there B mahnor must be wunna those DEVIL CHORDS...yup, them gahs with long hair play that chord 'cause it's a DEVIL CHORD..."

[dougsthang]

having learned to play guitar by ear, laying the needle on the record over and over again developed my listening ability. Later I went to college and learned to read music and take music theory. The theory was great to learn, another set of paints to draw from when songwriting but that's it. What left me high and dry about music theory was "the rules". You would learn all the do's and don'ts of composition then study a Bach piece and he broke the rules. They would say, well that's Bach, he could take liberties like that. Man, music comes from within. However it comes out and reaches the audience is at the discretion of the performer. I would never discourage musicians from not learning to read music, it only makes you stronger. Most of the time I play by feel and I create by feel. I played with a guy who was very theory minded and at times would tell me "you can't play that line over that chord change" and to me it was "it sounds cool, who gives a crap" and I'd keep it to which he could never play through the section without wincing. I guess i like a little atonality. T. Monk said "there's no such thing as a wrong note, only a poor choice"

[Steve LeBlanc]

I'm not going to argue this point by point...I've stated how I feel about it...but I'll clarify a little bit.

 

I never said there was anything wrong with playing simple chords, etc. in fact I think the more you know the more minimalistic you get at times. But making a concious decision to play one way, because it's what you learned first or whatever is an easy out and IMO goes against the nature of what music is about.

 

If you don't know what I'm talking about you never will so just shrug it off and keep doing your thing. I personally feel I owe it to myself and all the great musicians before me to constantly strive for something better/different.

 

I drive people nuts with my Basketball analogies but I can't stop doing it...

 

Kobe Bryant is a great jump shooter...he could have stopped there, been successful in the NBA as a clutch shooter but out of respect for the game and himself he's improved all aspects through discipline and determination (defense, passing, ball handling, slam dunks)...he's becoming one of the best to ever play the game AND inspiring other players to do the same.

 

OK, maybe that analogy doesn't work for you, it's the way I approach music. Not to compete with others but to respect the effort and time involved in being the best you can be.

 

There will always be a place for Chamber players because classical music sounds better live than on CD...it will be the same for Rock players...it's more fun to hear a band play Johnny B. Goode live and in your face than to hear it on CD. The people who provide this service by definition are musicians but nothing like the musician I strive to be. Actually I can't help but be more...I'm cheating myself and whatever gifts I have if I stop there.

 

Again, this is how I feel...I could be wrong...no one is going to change anyone's mind on a BB...I learned that a long time ago...just stating my opinion...strongly http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif.

[Lee Flier]

I personally feel I owe it to myself and all the great musicians before me to constantly strive for something better/different.

 

Me too, and that is exactly my point: that you are missing the ways in which practitioners of technically "limited" art forms strive to improve themselves. There are many other ways to improve one's technique, other ways to do something better or different, than just to learn other styles of music or different chords or scales.

 

I am constantly trying to improve myself as a guitar player and songwriter. Generally what this means to me is that I strive for better or different tones, better ways to serve the song, different dynamic tricks, maybe better right-hand techniques such as finger picking, maybe alternate tunings if that will get me the sound that I want. Also, part of the reason I became a recording engineer is because I wanted to do different things with the guitar sonically, layering various simple guitar parts on each other to form something richer, a la Led Zep or Electric Ladyland. I have spent as many hours working on these things as most players spend on practicing scales and learning theory and complex chord changes, and I feel this has paid off for me and the type of music I love and want to play.

 

If all you've got is a three chord song, you'd damn well better bring something to the table that makes it stand out: your passion had better come through, and you'd better have some killer tonal qualities and emotional qualities that really make the song happen and convey what it is about. A lot of people don't do that of course, so they suck and they sound tired and uninspired and hackneyed. But as strat points out, so do a lot of people who know every lick and chord and scale in the book. You can never quantify what makes a piece of music work by its structural form.

 

--Lee

[strat0124]

Ted...that's funny stuff...."the Devil chord".....I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. There's rock guys like that too.

There's no substitute for a groove......none whatsoever. I like to hear finesse (spelling?) in whatever genre I'm listening to, probably the main reason I like David Sanborn over "the curly haired soprano sax player who we love to hate". Or why I'd rather listen to Bruce Cockburn or Ry Cooder over Satch. Just my preference.

Oh......a violin joke: Know what the difference between a violin and a fiddle??????

 

Give up????????

 

A fiddle has strangs on it.

[AlChuck]

I hesitate to step in here 'cause I'm afraid I might get blood or spittle or chunks of scalp on my nice clean shirt, but I couldn't resist...

 

Lee, what makes you think Jeff Beck is a theory guy? As far as I know he's as close to theory-illiterate as anyone is. And Pete Townshend is quite theory-literate. I seem to recall reading that when he was beginning to work on Tommy, he spent a lot of time studying western classical harmony so he could satisfy his urge to write more complex and interesting stuff...

 

Both of them, by the way, are way up on my personal favorite guitar player list...

 

-AlChuck

[dougsthang]

Allan Holdsworth plays completely by ear. He rarely does clinics due to the fact he's uncomfortable talking about chords and scales. When asked about a scale within a certain tune of his, he said it was the "Ricther Scale".