Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?

[michael saulnier]

Originally posted by 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".

 

dougsthang,

 

That's so Holdsworth... Ricther Scale... I love it!!!

 

guitplayer

 

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

http://www.mp3.com/acousticvoodoo

 

Guitar Forum CD Info

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum19/HTML/000537.html

[gtrmac]

Even though my first impulse is to come to the defense of music theory since it has been a necessary tool for me to learn and understand Jazz (the little bit about it that I do know) I am usually disgusted when I listen to someone who has used theory as an end in itself. the entire school of diatonic riffmeisters bores me to death. All the players I love, from Jeff Beck to Jimi Hendryx and certainly Wes Montgomery are guys that play melodies first and let the theorisers figure it out later. Also, learning to read music has nothing to do with music theory. If you go to music school you will be taught the two subjects seperately but you can learn to read fluently without knowing anything about theory. I took Violin lessons when I was a kid for three years and music theory was never discussed. Practicing scales and arpeggios is a waste of time, unless you want to get up in front of an audience and play scales and arpeggios. Some people apparently think this is entertaining.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

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.

 

You know, the thing is the "correct manner" is a human construct. What counts is the organizational self-references in a sentence and mutual understanding of the vocabulary.

 

In that respect I think language - particularly "English" - is a moving target. There ain't no right way to speak - because the *language comes before the rules*.

 

Language happens.

 

It is not an empirical quality like semi-conductor science. There are muliple ways of communicating the same *general* thought.

 

HOWEVER

 

The problem is that there's a minimum threshold of standardization for it to work. In other words, the rules are subservient to the language - but if the language becomes too stratified, you can't put rules to it.

 

If that happens, the process of communicating becomes ambiguous. It may still crudely be "language", but it's effectiveness - communication - is diminished.

 

So in that respect the awareness of the rules is important from the aspect of the goal being communication.

 

Musically, a lot of what is happening right now relates to the same social drive that pushes kids to say phrases that are deliberately non-grammatical. For instance, the phrase "My bad" is now common parlance. By the same token, that phase has uses in the nooks and crannies of our language that isn't served exactly the same way by any other phrase.

Musically the equivalent to that might be a sample of a turntable scratch, or a "yeahhhhhh boyeeeeee" or some such.

 

It functions as the musical "language", but it's part of the tractionalization process going on in music right now. Beyond a certain point "Music" might stop "working" because the original intent - *communicating* will become so ambiguous as to make it akin to baby talk. It will resemble "music" outwardly, but it's not going to function as such.

The communication aspect - either of feelings, ideas, lyrical content - will be gone, and only a primitive shadow will remain. A regressive dialect, except there won't be anything else to rise up to subsume it like you find in language science.

 

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

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

We all know that our fingers develop a "muscle memory" where we instinctively go to certain patterns when improvising.

 

"Muscle memory" is really a misnomer. It's really the process of making something a reflex, a sub-conscious procedure.

 

Evening out muscle memory to me is what one should strive for. You shouldn't think "Emaj", or "V of A", or even "a chord kind of like the situation in that song by so-and-so". It should be totally invisible with the thought process IMO. The downside to that is that you have to make sure your mind is coherent enough so that when you're "thinking" on the guitar it makes sense to those hearing it outside of your mind.

 

I'm a stark raving loon, aren't I?

 

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.

 

You know, the thing is... while it's considered detrimental to be reflexive from a lick standpoint, a lot of times for a lot of players it's really the best utilization of their skill, although in a rudimentary fashion. In my experience, when a "licks" player is doing their thing that's about the only time their playing seems natural, despite being derivative.

 

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.

 

That is the only pure way to play IMO. Few people get it, though - and it's something that is either there or isn't, and it's immediately noticeable in the first minute of hearing someone improvise for the first time.

 

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

 

Which is important. You're attaching emotional symbology to kinesthetic movements, instead of empirical symbology you later have to translate through some process. Which is inefficient IMO...

 

I've told students "You don't need to come to lessons anymore; you don't need to know more than what you know". If I see a student firmly in the mode of "self-assimilation of musical ideas" there doesn't need to be anymore external input. IMO, unless they feel intellectually stagnant.

 

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

 

Right.

 

The bad part is that there are times when it is really important to be able to communicate a concept quickly - and there isn't a musical term for it. The chaotic nature of the math involved in the interactions of "creating music" exceeds the limits of "Music Theory Definitions", which is why I think a lot of people resort to saying things like "do a Led Zeppelin feel like "Dyer Maker"" or some such: *that* is no different than explicitely detailing the musical process that defines the nature of that song. Additionally, when playing with other musicians, awareness of what has just been played enters the equation - which further complicates things.

 

But that's why humans rule! Instantaneous shortcuts: "just play vibe like so-and so". In the context of playing with other humans that nudges things in a not-so-certain direction, but will hopefully yield something roughly within the limits of an expected outcome.

 

The better the musicians are that I play with, the less we have to talk.

 

The better the musicians are that I play with, the less *technical* the language is that is used when we *do* talk.

 

The only time I find the use of precise musical terminology ("flamadidle"; "accent the 7th on the & of 2 on the tag") is when someone isn't on the same page as I am, or someone isn't keeping up.

 

Internally, I *never* think of musical terms, ever. It's there in my head as sound - so *then* there's a reverse translation process: figuring out how to describe instantaneous sound in verbal terms. *That sucks* as a process. However, I suppose that's the inverse of the way a lot of people actually play music - going through a technical "conversion" process through the dictums of "music theory" before it comes out. Yuck.

 

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

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

This message has been edited by Chip McDonald on 06-14-2001 at 04:56 AM

[strat0124]

wow....that was, a mouthful. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed CHip.....but I "think" I caught the jist of it. I admit that I get lost in the long posts at times and catch one sentence and may take it out of context.....I'm sure it happens frequently with other "hurried" people as well.

From my personal experience, I've only seen a half dozen classically trained musicians in our area play the circuit. They are a Godsend when you are playing with horns, cause they can translate things on the charts a bit quicker. I can read, but I can't sight read without something to follow. But that doesn't necessarily make them that versatile. I find it sometimes is a hinderance to a true groove. Not always mind you, but sometimes. The biggest thing that helped me with written music was playing in a jazz band, where we read charts for EVERY song. But I'm a firm believer that the charts should be interpreted...not just mechanically beat out. So yeah.....sometimes trained musicians have all the mechanics but no feel. There are exceptions in the guitar world, and I wish I had that mathematical understanding of what I'm doing on the fretboard....but it really doesn't matter in a combo playing the clubs...not to me anyway. As far as teaching someone how to play using blues/rock/pop theory.....me thinks it's just for their personal satisfaction rather than anything else. I doubt Steve Marriott knew half the chords he played.....but damn they were good.

[seclusion]

It's sorta nice when you play with others to have a common language to communicate music...

Key of A minor blah, blah.. Other people need to know what the hell your brain is dreamin up... It's funny to me though when I hear Arabic type music where the scales are so different than western music...

"Hey man you're playin the wrong notes there"...

To me they sound wrong... But that's because I'm so stone washed with the 3 chord thing and 6 strings that I couldn't even imagine divin into that..

I play by ear too... I have a decent understanding of theroy.. I can read music but no one would know the song...

But damn you play the cd/tape and I'm in heaven...

Isn't it funny when the radio announces the new Colective soul tune or Pearl Jam.. I hear it for the first time and play along with it.. Just like I've heard it a 1000 times..... Ya the music may be sorta "simple" but it takes a musician to hear, comprehend, interpret, and spit it back out the fingers, in milliseconds... All with a similar feel so an audience can understand what you're playing...

Sorry guys.... I'm a fu$ckin musician all right...

Don't forget that we do this for $50-$100 a night if we're lucky..

Brian

If I only put that much effort into understanding women.. Do you think I'd be as successful???? Hmmmm..

[gtrmac]

I reread Lee's original post and it just really got to me. Learning about audio "theory" and computer programming is a lot easier than learning music theory and being able to apply it while playing a musical instrument. The amount of physical practicing that it requires makes most things look easy as a matter of fact. If it was easy I think a lot more people would be doing it. The world is filled with computer programmers these days but how many virtuoso guitar players do you see hanging around. As far as the audio theory goes I work as an audio technician. My main job is repairing consoles for a Solid State Logic dealer in Japan where I live. As you would imagine I can operate them too. I teach recording at a music school here, part time. Compared to playing guitar this stuff's a piece of cake. I just get a little offended when i read stuff like this. Of course there's merit in understanding the fundamentals of music. Unless you want to limit yourself creatively. Just because some knuckleheads gave technique a bad name by shredding a couple of modes until we all puked doesn't mean that the entire history of western music is worthless. I like rock music too but check out some Ennio Morricone or Bartok or Thelonious Monk once in a while and reach for something.

[Steve LeBlanc]

I reread Lee's original post and it just really got to me. Learning about audio "theory" and computer programming is a lot easier than learning music theory and being able to apply it while playing a musical instrument.

 

Yeah, I was kinda offended too...I spent 15 years of my life studying different versions of Music theory and perfecting technique on my main instrument (Piano). In fact I'm still studying just no books or teachers involved anymore. Writing off my work and experience in a couple of sentences just because someone doesn't understand it got me a bit fired up.

 

I do stand by everything I've said in this thread though...sorry but I just think we owe the spirit of music (whatever that is) our full attention and effort.

[strat0124]

I wrote earlier:

[gtrmac]

Actually I meant to use Nino Rota as an example in my post above. I agree with what Chip is saying that music notation is not a complete description of all the nuances which can be contained in music. This implies more to me than it would seem at first glance. In other words, music is difficult to describe in simple terms. I don't think I'm offended by anyones lack of musical literacy. Theory is only a means to an end. Lee is suffering from a case of musical arrested development and trying to rationalize it. She did say "blues, rock, and pop guitarists" though. Maybe Guitar Players would be a better description. This is Musicplayer.com after all, not Musician.com.

[Lee Flier]

Steve and Mac... for one thing I don't think either of you guys have read much beyond my original post, which was 1) somewhat tongue in cheek and 2) very clear that it was my personal opinion and NOT an outright condemnation of anybody who studies theory. I was simply pointing out that it is not NECESSARY in order to be a good rock, pop or blues guitarist, and that it didn't do anything for me personally.

 

And if you want to think that being "just" a rock player is "arrested development", that's your problem. I have no need to rationalize anything - I play what I love and that's the end of the story. However I have to take exception once again to the idea that I am not putting forth my "full attention and effort" if I don't move off in some direction that YOU think I ought to. I guess the ways in which I do put hours of effort into my playing (which I have mentioned above) don't mean anything to you. That's OK - we're even there, because your standards obviously don't mean anything to me either. However I don't doubt that they mean something to you, or that you have put a lot of effort into pursuing your own courses. Obviously you are completely unwilling to even consider that I may be doing the same. I guess you think you know my own mind and heart better than I do?

 

--Lee

 

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 06-14-2001 at 06:15 PM

[Steve LeBlanc]

Nothing I'm posting is a personal attack...

 

I'm responding with words to the words you posted...I have read the entire thread today...I already admitted I didn't before my first posts to this thread.

 

You posted some ideas that I strongly disagree with...I attacked the words not you...sorry you took it personally. I get fired up at the notion (even if it's stated in jest) that serious study of music is comparable to computer programming or something anyone could do easily. I also disagree with the idea that a musician doesn't need to study (and I don't necessarily mean notation/chords, etc.) anymore once they've "achieved" what they wanted...but I've already said my 2-cents on that note.

 

Just speaking my mind here...no offense intended and I wasn't just talking about Lee http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc:

Nothing I'm posting is a personal attack...

You posted some ideas that I strongly disagree with...I attacked the words not you...sorry you took it personally.

 

Actually you didn't get personal, Mac did. So you can ignore that part. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

I get fired up at the notion (even if it's stated in jest) that serious study of music is comparable to computer programming or something anyone could do easily.

 

Anything complex (computer programming included) can be studied seriously, which takes many years of effort and application, or it can be studied less seriously. I do think anyone can study music theory, although that doesn't mean anyone will be able to apply it well (and I never said that). And I HAVE seen too many people who've studied music "seriously" (that is, gone to music school for several years and have continued to pursue technical study) where I think they suck and/or all sound the same. A whole lot of guitarists I heard in L.A. were GIT graduates and I personally thought they were a dime a dozen, as commonplace as computer geeks in Silicon Valley. Not many of them really stood out, even though they certainly knew their way around the fretboard.

 

That doesn't mean "theory sucks" or even that GIT sucks; it just means that the things that make you great or unique as a player have little to do with your formal education (or lack thereof) - and yet lots of people hang onto the notion that it does. If you have the spirit of music in you, you will find whatever way you need to bring that out in yourself and do it. If that means going to school, you will. If it doesn't, you'll study whatever YOU have to study.

 

So I think studying programming and music are quite comparable in that anybody with half a brain can study music, or programming, and become competent, possibly even competent enough to work at it for money. Whether it goes any further than that into true excellence is another story. Not many people in any field do that. And those who excel in any field usually do it in different ways.

 

I also disagree with the idea that a musician doesn't need to study (and I don't necessarily mean notation/chords, etc.) anymore once they've "achieved" what they wanted...

 

But I never put forth that idea. If you don't mean notation/chords, and if by "study" you simply mean continually striving to become better, then we have no argument. My original post was specifically referring to the formal study of theory, and specifically as it applies to rock and pop musicians.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 06-14-2001 at 07:09 PM

[gtrmac]

Well you said you had your asbestos suit on so I assume you were expecting to take some heat on this! It was certainly an opinion which was intended to get an emotional response. I may have overstepped the boundaries of formal debate and I apologise for that. One thing that used to dissapoint me when I was beginning to learn how to play guitar though was how some of my heros seemed to stop developing at a certain point. Maybe this is a natural thing and I'm the weird one, I don't know. I've always wanted to find something new and keep growing. As far as the opinion about computer programming goes I contend that music is an art, most people agree although it's getting difficult to tell. This clearly distinguishes it from something like computer science which isn't even really a science. Even a true science embodies more of the spiritual and intuitive than computer programming.

[strat0124]

Well, most of my heroes have sorta stopped developing at one time or another, with respect to learning more about guitar playing. But so what? After you cross into "fortyplus-land" you still learn new stuff, but you've pretty much settled into what you're gonna do from then on, in my opinion. I'd question it if it applied to a twenty-something player....but then that's just my opinion. I never thought John Lee Hooker was a slacker just because he's been doing the same riffs for fifty years......he's settled into a comfort zone, and he's happy, and what he does resonates with his audience. That's enough for me.

[KJ]

These forums are such interesting reads! I do learn a lot, both in regards to music and people. It is entertaining to watch these debates unfold, with people defending their opinions point by point. I enjoy how Lee answers everyone point by point. It is obvious that she is very passionate about what she does and how she does it and feels a strong need to defend it. I had a hard time when I started learning music, it was something that I wanted to do and wanted to learn more about. I am the type who dives in and reads everything that I can find about something I am interested in. I read theory books, read up on how to read the staff, but I was too self-concious to take a lesson and did not trust my ear enough to play along or to try to figure out songs! What an epiphany I had when fooling around on my bass I stumbled across the riff to Yes' "Owner of a Lonely Heart". "Hey! I got that down without someone showing me or going off sheet music!" My point being that I thought in order to play music I HAD to immerse myself in theory. The first times that I played with other people, I was horrible. Then I figured out (duh) that music isn't something you read about, but you DO. I still read up on theory because I want to know why something sounds good when played against that chord, or why those chords went together. I enjoy understanding the why's. When I play or right songs, I use what theory I know as a starting point to push me in new ways, but then use my ear to play what I think fits. As a bass player in a band where we play whatever song the leader calls out, I use my theoretical knowledge to anticipate changes and bridges and what lines I should play to a song that I have never played before and may never play again!

 

Anyways, perhaps I'm off track here. One thing that I saw on this thread that I wanted to reply to was the argument that birds don't know aerodynamic theory or physics but they still fly so then we can play music without knowing theory. I can understand where people are going with this, but the example begs the argument. It is quite a stretch to compare the two. Birds fly because they HAVE to. They (at least the flighted ones) are genetically programmed to! Music to a human is a method of expression or entertainment, not a necessity. I'm not slagging anyone on their opinions, just pick a better example for your argument!

 

Peace....

 

 

 

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

KJ

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

bari man low

[Tedster]

I like that example, Strat. We don't all start at Kurt Cobain and end up at Allan Holdsworth. Sooner or later we'll hit a spot of said satisfaction. For some that may never come. For some, however, it means you're focusing on other areas than just developing guitar chops. Could be songwriting. Could be learning another instrument. Perhaps those who are somewhere between Kurt Cobain and Allan Holdsworth are motivated to keep pushing for the Holdsworth...but some think "okay, enough...time to focus on something else"...and that's not necessarily wrong. Some of the "Allan Holdsworths" out there might be lacking in other areas.

 

What it boils down to again is "Whatever gets you through the night...it's alright...it's alright"

 

And, why is it that some of those who think that one must maintain a constant state of flux look at a couple of rusty I beams welded together at bizarre angles and see "brilliant sculpture"? Different strokes is all...

[fet]

Good points all.

 

I will say, though, that once I learned how to play the head to "Donna Lee", it became very difficult for me to enjoy playing "You Really Got Me"...

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, Strat and Tedster, you nailed it. "We don't all start with Kurt Cobain and end with Allan Holdsworth" - some of us focus on other things besides new "chops". That about says it all. Ever since I started playing I have been puzzled by that attitude. There is no one vertical linear path to excellence. I mean if that's the path YOU want to follow that's cool, but to characterize someone as being in "arrested development" because they DON'T follow that particular path, but a different one, has always struck me as bizarre. Personally, I'm more interested in being the complete package - guitarist, songwriter, band member and engineer/producer - than just a guitarist with great chops. I consider my guitar playing to be just one facet of what I do musically, and I focus on those things in my playing that I feel will help the whole picture.

 

Steve, if we're going to use sports analogies, I'm a baseball fan, and I don't think Greg Maddux would go around dissing Ken Griffey Jr. because he doesn't know how to pitch. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif And the other facets of his game would certainly suffer if he tried. Maddux does work on his hitting and bunting SOME because it helps his team, but if he worked as hard at it as the hitters do, he wouldn't be as good at HIS job.

 

And Mac, I did indeed intend to generate some emotional responses and I'm not knocking you for making personal remarks - I was just letting Steve know that I didn't think HE was getting personal. In fact, I appreciate the fact that you said what you honestly felt because that's what I wanted to know, and I suspected that most guys in your particular "camp" felt exactly that way. I do think your statement is presumptive and plain wrong http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif, but I'm glad you didn't sugarcoat it.

 

And to KP: I think some humans are just as compelled to make music as birds are to fly. I also think the ability to play and sing is natural in most people, but our society actually does a lot to thwart that ability and downgrade its importance to our lives. But that's another sad story altogether....

 

--Lee

[Tedster]

fet said...

 

>>I will say, though, that once I learned how to play the head to "Donna Lee", it became very difficult for me to enjoy playing "You Really Got Me"...

 

 

True...but let's just say all of a sudden you discovered that you could, for instance, sing like your favorite singer (assuming you don't already). Wouldn't that be perhaps a thing to all of a sudden start focusing on vocal chops? And, to the end of "You really got me"...understood if that's all you played. But, there's a time and a place for "Close to the edge" just like a time and place for "Louie Louie".

 

Some people were talking up a local band big time a couple of weeks ago. They're kinda like local "legends"...you know...the ones who backed up bigger acts in town etc. Well, I heard 'em...wasn't all that impressed. Giving myself the ol' big pat on the back because everyone I knew was saying "Wow, Ted, you can play circles around that guy". Well, his electric blues chops might not have been top notch. But...turns out he was some big national bluegrass flatpicking champ. (I need to put one of Khan's icons with the purple guy with the jaw that drops to the floor here). I turned from champ to chump in a matter of seconds http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif. Everyone's got something to offer...

[nrg music]

Originally posted by Tedster:

Everyone's got something to offer...

 

 

ya can't argue with that, well said!!

 

Simon

[seclusion]

Isn't it cool when you get to that place where you know you can do your thing really fuckin good... It doesn't go to your head hopefully... But when a former teacher/player looks at you with that.. "How did ya do that".. You know you're getting there... But then you get a wee bit bored maybe and try combining some keys with the guitar(cause your older sister taught ya Amazing Grace on the piana).. Then you mix the chords from the guitar to Piano and back... That's really cool too.. Then you figure that hey a synth would be cool... Then a drum machine.. Then shit I gotta get me a mackie.. Then some decent mics... A heavy reverb... Blah, Blah blah...

With the end result being I'm going out to Jam with a band, cause at 2:00 in the morning the Trinity isn't going to invite their girlfriend over for some "R & R"..

I thinks I come full circle to where I left off 15 years ago...

Shit man.. I wanna Jam.. Get some input from other donkeys like myself.. Have fun, sound good and enjoy a damn beer..

You know..

When I was doin a small circiut a few years ago... I remember plotting in a Joe Satriani solo inside of 'She's Only 17'... I remeber thinkin gawd that sounds so good... I'm for sure gonna get laid after that one...

The chicks were dancin away.. They didn't care... But all the musicians ,(mostly guys) had there jaw to the floor... "Fuck man I didn't care what he thought.. I wanted his wife...

That night forever changed my life..

We all sucked at one time... It's time to enjoy what we do well...

I do hate it though when other musicians can't handle being out played.. Not so much in theory/and speed but in fitting in properly with 4 players.. That's not somethin you can learn in a book...

Brian

[Gator Wing]

I love reading your debates! You guys sound like the Harley-Davidson / non-Harley debates in the motorcycle forums.

 

It seems to me that if you can play what you like, then you ought to be happy for yourself, and happy for others who can play what they like.

[Sylver]

I didn't read all of the posts, but here's my two cents ...

There are players that I really like that know thier shit ... Satch, Vai, DiMeola, etc. Then there are those who I have no clue as to what they know, but I love them anyway. Music comes from the soul, no amount of theroy can erase that, but you have to know SOMETHING, even if you just pick up licks from a record.

[gtrmac]

I'n not in a camp. I live in a city http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I've been happy with my playing for the last thirty years or so. I've always enjoyed playing, that's why I kept doing it. I like to play blues, fingerstlyle acoustic, jazz fusion and rock. I can't help wanting to play as many styles as I can, I like them all. I think that I'm not alone. Many musicians are versatile and experienced in different styles. I don't see any problem with it. I wish I could be better at Jazz Standards for instance or know how to play Brazilian Bossa Nova's. What I'm really interested in is letting these styles influence my original music. I think you guys are in the camps, I'm living in the big city. No offense please I'm just playing with ya!

 

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

Mac Bowne

G-Clef Acoustics Ltd.

Osaka, Japan

[rosespappy]

Yow-eee! Lee, ya sure know how to stoke the coals! If anyone has ever read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" you might notice the similarity between Richard Persig's analogies of the Platist, and Sophist views.

 

Put simply Persig, in his journey to discover who he was before the shrinks fried his brain, uncovers the power of blending the two. Form alone is devoid of any real quality.Function alone is devoid of any real quality. Quality, in fact, does not exist until equal measures of art and science form a truth.

 

Musically stated I would interpret that as saying: Superb technical prowess without creativity is without quality. And, great creativity without technical ability is without quality.

 

My 17 year old does an almost inaudible guitar line through a whisperry vocal line of "Jesus loves me". Technically simple, soulfully simple, simply powerfull.

 

hmmmmmm rick

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by fet:

I will say, though, that once I learned how to play the head to "Donna Lee", it became very difficult for me to enjoy playing "You Really Got Me"...

 

I learned the head to "Donna Lee".. and "Scrapple From the Apple", "Onithology", uhm... a lot of 'em...

 

"You Really Got Me" never did much for me... but the intro to "Whole Lotta Love" still affects me the same, as does many simple riffs. In fact...

 

Having kind of run the gamut all the way out to Holdsworth, I'm sort of in search for the brilliant simple, reductionist things. I'm a freak because just yesterday I got ragged by the guys at the store for playing a few notes from the sax solo in Pink Floyd's "Time", after hearing it on the radio; granted, I did it for almost an hour. I can thoroughly entertain myself with a few notes as well as many, provided there's something clever to those few notes.

 

"You Really Got Me" is curious, though... A lot of people play it, but I haven't heard it played with the right gusto. VanHalen's version is just as great, but obviously rhythmically completely different. There's a brilliance in the nuance there. I think poor drummers ruin the oppotunity in a lot of cases to do such classic songs justice, forcing that nuance into a more generic vibe.

 

 

Regardless - it's all music isn't it?

 

Chip McDonald

Founding Member, Serious Loon Society (SLS)

 

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

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[nrg music]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

"You Really Got Me" is curious, though... A lot of people play it, but I haven't heard it played with the right gusto. VanHalen's version is just as great, but obviously rhythmically completely different. There's a brilliance in the nuance there. I think poor drummers ruin the oppotunity in a lot of cases to do such classic songs justice, forcing that nuance into a more generic vibe.

 

 

Regardless - it's all music isn't it?

 

Chip McDonald

Founding Member, Serious Loon Society (SLS)

 

 

Absolutely, I always thought Van Halen did an awesome version of 'You Really Got Me'...... As for the poor drummers syndrome I never heard a truer word!

So how do the rest of us sign up for the Serious Loon Society anyways?

 

Simon http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Lee Flier]

DEFINITELY if you don't have the right drummer, all those simple classic rock songs will not work. Luckily I have a couple of great drummers stashed in the basement. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif And I can definitely deliver the right feel on a song like "You Really Got Me". It's not just a matter of playing the notes right, for sure, which is what I've been trying to say all along in this thread.

 

Hey Rick: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is one of my all time favorite books. Interestingly though, almost everyone I know who's read it comes away from it with a different philosophy. The way you sum up Pirsig's basic point is not the way I would sum it up at all - which doesn't surprise me, because almost everyone else also interprets it differently from each other. Which only goes to show you what a great book it really is! Everybody gets something profound out of it, but for each of us it's different! Pretty cool!

 

 

--Lee