New guy here! Questions about learning to play the guitar!

[whitefang]

Is this guy publishing a GLOSSARY, or WHAT??

 

Whitefang

[Wow]

I picked up my STRAT(modified with a HUMBUCKER)to practice my CHOPS. I plugged into my CRATE and ran my hand across the STRINGS and FRETS until I got to the BRIDGE. I kicked in the DROP D tuning and blew the fu**ing house up with my HALF STACK.

 

I hope this helps.

[Adrenalin418]

Originally posted by whitefang:

Is this guy publishing a GLOSSARY, or WHAT??

 

Whitefang

lol, yea, pretty much..building up the glossary in my head...I gotta start somewhere. So far, I've decided to pick up a steel-string acoustic for about $1-200 and take that guitar class at my school. As tempting as it may be to get right to the electric, I've decided to begin with the acoustic first, as I've heard that it helps build finger strength, which lends itself to speed later on when I make the switch. My decision isn't concrete yet, as I still have until about January to make up my mind, but so far, this is what I think I should do.

[LiveMusic]

There probably is an online music dictionary or just look stuff up in a regular dictionary. Ralph Denyer's book on guitar is extensive. If you want a copy, mine is virtually brand new. Will sell.

 

BTW, I am partial to acoustic. I cannot imagine NOT having an acoustic. Even if I were a whiz at electric, I'd want one. There are a gazillion songs you can play on acoustic that sound like crap on electric. Of course, vice versa. But I really do think being able to play folky or ballad stuff is great for anyone. With an acoustic, you can make real music by yourself and it won't sound like you need more.

[whitefang]

Funny thing is, when all I had was an acoustic, all I wanted was an electric. When I finally GOT an electric, my old acoustic fell apart. THEN, I wanted another acoustic. After I got THAT, I had BOTH for a few years until my electric was gone. Now all I have are two acoustics, and I want an ELECTRIC!

 

Better get BOTH, dude! Avoid this hassle!

 

Whitefang

[WarlockRIK]

Hey Adrenalin418, I'm also new to guitar and new to the boards as well. I bought a B.C.Rich Warlock a few weeks back and my uncle has been teaching me the basics and with a lot of practice, I can already feel a difference. My fingers don't hurt as much and I can play for longer periods of time without getting too tired. I guess I'm going through the 'growing pains' involved with learning an instrument as intricate and complated as guitar. I spend a lot of time just reading a lot of the threads and pick up knowledge that way (the old-timers have a lot of phenomenal advice that you can only learn through years of expirence). I never knew just how much there is to know about guitars until I started hearing about all the different kind of strings, amps, guitar models and manufacturers, etc., Well sorry for rambling here but I just want to share what's been happening these first few weeks since I started learning. By the way, is there a big difference for beginners to use a pick when learning how to play electric guitar? My uncle has told me to learn to play without one to get a more natural sound and I think he might be right. Any feedback on that would be appreciated...

 

thanx

[moosemaster]

metronome WORD.

 

class tution? is that what you mean?

maaannn I dunno about that shit... the most students i'll take is two at a time and they better be evenly matched... i could earn a load more in much less time by taking classes but it's just not fair on the student in my opinion.

AND they're making you use acoustic (which under the circumstances is predictable)

...another thing i whole heartedly disagree with. if you're dedicated it wont make any difference, and strength and stamina are the result of ACCURACY of fingering, (sure finger excersizers whatever - but we aint playin the piano here) anyone who tells you otherwise aint practicing enough, dont mean to offend any peeps here but end of lesson on that one.

 

Mindsenders exploratory eyes-closed-go-a-slide method is great advice, no doubt... and though I'm sure it was not intended this way, any suggestion that it would actually take the place of scales would be highly irresponsible and stupid and infer that players who do use scales somehow limit their freedom, or uniqueness for that matter.

that's how it happens for you at first or forever, hey great...but seriously dude if a player aint gonna play musically with scales, then then sliding around will net the same result.

 

love it, go for what you dig, get lost in it and and never think 'i can't do this cos i got told it's wrong'

and do your scales.

[Tedster]

Seriously, and all kidding aside (for the moment)...a POD is a device that looks sorta like a big red kidney bean...manufactured by Line6... www.line6.com ...and it is an "amp modeler". In other words, it supposedly digitally recreates the sound of any amp you dial in, from an old Fender tweed, to a Vox AC-30, to a Marshall half stack of blueberry poke chops...uh...amp.

 

Actually, it does a rather good job (albeit debatably) ...for around 300 bucks you can't beat it, IMHO. A fun toy anyway...and indispensable for, say, an apartment dweller who's into home recording.

[Adrenalin418]

Originally posted by whitefang:

Funny thing is, when all I had was an acoustic, all I wanted was an electric. When I finally GOT an electric, my old acoustic fell apart. THEN, I wanted another acoustic. After I got THAT, I had BOTH for a few years until my electric was gone. Now all I have are two acoustics, and I want an ELECTRIC!

 

Better get BOTH, dude! Avoid this hassle!

 

Whitefang

HAHAHA...man, thats a tempting idea....must...save...money...for...other...more...importa...ah to hell with it. Grrhh.

[Adrenalin418]

I'm trying to figure out is what the main difference between the Strat, Squier, Squier Strat, and Tele is. Is it price/quality? Sound? Look? And, what does the "fat" designate? Thanks all!

[Bunny Knutson]

Originally posted by Adrenalin418:

Originally posted by dBunny:

Hey, Adrenalin, do you know the difference between rhythm guitar and lead guitar? If not, it may help you to know this.

Nope. If I had to guess, I could probably come up with some bs answer that MIGHT somewhat be close to the real answer, but lets hear it from you guys, the experts.

Well, rhythm guitar, representing the harmony of the song, is the chords one plays throughout a song, forming a base over which one can sing or play a melody. Lead guitar is usually single notes played in succession that forms a melody. Generally speaking, when you see a player move up the neck (toward the body of the guitar) while playing a melody (sometimes with fast notes), s/he is playing lead guitar. The chug-chug-chug sound you hear in lots of rock songs is the rhythm guitar.

 

You're going to want to become fairly adept at playing rhythm guitar before you attempt to tackle lead guitar. Familiarize yourself with as many chords and chord structures as possible, especially barre chords. Barre chords are chord formations that you can move all over the neck to produce the same kind of chord in different keys.

 

When you feel that you have some grasp on playing chords and rhythm guitar, try using a pentatonic blues scale to play a lead guitar melody over a chord progression. The pentatonic blues scale is a minor-key five-note scale, which a lot of rock players base their learning and playing on. After you learn the pentatonic scale, learn the natural minor and major scales (with seven notes each). You may need an instructor, or at least a video, to help train you when you get to lead guitar level. After that, there are wonderful things like modes, and neato scales like the diminished scale. It really helps to have an experienced player show you these things in person.

 

I hope this helps. Practice, practice, practice!

[Mindsender]

Moosemaster wrote:

"Mindsenders exploratory eyes-closed-go-a-slide method is great advice, no doubt... and though I'm sure it was not intended this way, any suggestion that it would actually take the place of scales would be highly irresponsible and stupid and infer that players who do use scales somehow limit their freedom, or uniqueness for that matter."

 

Reply:

Well Moose, strange as it may seem to someone who learned the way you did, and most do, I actually AM suggesting forgoing scales completely, and I'll explain, though I don't mind anyone disagreeing from the bottom of their souls, because once you can "do it", it naturally feels as if you got there the right way, and that's fair. But here is the point. Very few CAN "do it", and seem to wonder down deep if they are kind of faking it by the endless boring repetitions they present as "playing" the guitar, and wonder sometimes what the hell "else" they could do.

I've even seen teachers who love Clapton and Hendrix, who can't begin to play like them, and have no idea why not. Seceretly, they'd give their eye teeth to figure out why the audiences go crazy for some guys, but not really them. They think it's just some "magic", some undefinable talent, and truly don't see what is going on "different". That "difference" is hard to fathom, it's subtle, its arguable, but here is my take.

First, just to put to rest the notion that learning scales could possibly "limit" ones freedom or uniqueness, I am not suggesting that. One can get beyond "same ol', same ol') by pressing forward against the tide of known positions by insisting on the melody in you head, rather than the one in your box, which is often harder to play in "real time". But few do, and most probably figure they have actually "arrived" once they can play variations inside a memorized box, with a little fearful drift away here and there in to No-mans land (the enemy where you can make "mistakes"), and I'm not talking about the guys who just want to get laid, but to that sector who wants to go pick up the guitar AFTER they just got laid.

Considering this is all just my opinion, I'll go one step further and suggest that Clapton started off this way, very scale oriented, but his talent and discontent cause him to press to be free on the neck and he "almost" got there, creating some of our best music as a songwriter, and a few very memorable licks, though one has to wonder sometimes how much he was "influenced" when listening to the old black players he so admired, and eventually gave great credit to. Still, I feel his "boxed in roots" in his current works, though he is largely free, again IMO. Malmsteen is another of the same thread, but he got more free on the neck than Eric, though Eric accomplished more because he is just so tastily musical, a great songwriter, and ocassionally a fine singer, though like most great singers, he dosen't have much of a voice, so go figure. Voice is not a skill. "Singing" is.

Now to the possible "proof of the pudding." Hendrix, in his greatest moments (like the star spangled banner at Woodstock), sounds like a kid who picked up a loud thing and started monkeying with it, hitting it with sticks, shaking it, anything to see what it was and how to make it get upset. It is to my ear, as if someone found the first electric guitar, never had a lesson (or ignored it), and gradually searched out what it would do. He ended up with great "sound effects", terriffic rhythmic inventions, and an "ease" with large jumps from here to there without really being sure where he was going to land sometimes, and the ability to pickup on the theme, or change it, wherever he landed. Most of the time he landed about where he wanted, but if not, he did something nice with it anyway, leading an audience to believe he'd done exactly what he'd intended. In other words, he could really "play" the guitar from all the searching around he'd done "outside" the boxes, which I'd say he never paid much attention to (scales).

The difficulty for someone with the usual "learn your scales night and day" slant is that it is TRUE that anyone playing like Hendrix, often finds themselves passing through and in and out of the same boxes scales teach, because that's the do re mi distances (or whatever..major, minor, etc.) that our ears hear and expect as pleasant in western music. But that was an accident. The job Hendrix is doing is following a melodic voice INSIDE his head, not a dictate of his learned hand positions. (Patience, please, I know you're not convinced yet.)

The point is that there is a way to learn that emphasises the experimental, rather than the known, and leads to a far greater "playing" ability, as opposed to coming on stage and repeating mostly memorized moves with a few variations to convince yourself you are fresh. If, however, your "greatest skill" is instead.. being able to move fast away from where you are playing to a new line in your "head" (which changes it's mind a lot more than scales will prepare you for) to sometimes completely "first time there" places, and pick up from their, perhaps in the same theme, you are freer on the neck, and in your melodic mind, than if you have to go from memorized place to memorized place. It's subtle, and hard to spot because of the more similiar than different things we all play, and it's rare to see such freedom for comparison, but that is the difference between great and good.. need I say it, in my opinion.

Think of the most beautiful guitar playing you ever heard, maybe something you've worked your ass off to memorize note for note. There now, you can play it, and sometimes really good if your juiced. But could you come up with something like it? Sometimes yes (great things are often simple) But sometimes there seems to be a disjointed perfection, leaps that were "unlikely", bold, and wonderful. And this guy probably just popped out with it one day "with no practice". It just came out of him. Out of what? Out of his melodic head. Not out of his disciplined fretboard. And you think... My God, how did he do that? Sure, I can play it.. uh, finally. But that guy could have played just about anything he heard.. right off. So the question is, how'd he get there?

I move around a lot, seeking a particular note at the other end of the neck, or mid neck, etc. but I truly can't picture in my mind where that place would be (unless it's a favorite thing I'm repeating because I've come to love it). A person who learned with scales, couldn't imagine finding "that" without having a picture in mind of where it is first, for the most part. I never have a picture, nor could I map out where I was going to play, or had been with a picture of the fingerboard (repeatable little effects like double noting, bends, etc. aside). For me, it's all intuitive distances, free of keys. Sure, I'm IN a key, but it doesn't matter which one, cause I'm just following my own melody, and adding "effects" along the way. Naturally, the old favorite "going home" open A or E at the nut is an exception, as is the the last note at the opposite end, but for the most part, I'd just take off and live with the possible mistakes, either sliding up or down, or just landing in an instinctual place (which by now usually seems to work out). This is very freeing, albeit, more fraut with potential mistakes, but you get very fast at turning those into grace notes that appear to have just lead to the note you actually then "play". This is the opposite of tight assed fearful playing, and leads to a "different" kind of satisfaction.

Believe it or not, considering this "junkyard dog" approach, I'm kind of a perfectionist with a tendency towards classical melodic lines I torture, so I'd think I couldn't stand to play like this, but I love it. Then again, I'm also really impressed with seeing someone workout on know patterns at amazing speeds that impress at first, but these players rarely seem to find deeply moving, creative things, in my experience, then want to go teach it to someone else. Music schools are full of very un-creative teachers who..kind of hate their students, for giving them no great respect. Because something is clearly missing in their own "gift". In fact, most of them really did have a gift, but not the guts to go their own way and explore the nether lands.

Anyway, it's all good fun and so good for the mind, whatever way you do it, and most want FAST, and reliable results. But it's like going FAST.. doing laps around a track. You aren't going anywhere.

So, just thought I try and share the rare for whatever good it does anyone who wants to try something different, like I did. Reason being was I had a music theory class once that turned classical music pieces into math. The bean counters had spent endless years "codefying" music patterns, with every expectation that such division would put Humpty Dumpty back together again in perfect order, and this was their great "gift" to us. But guess what.. Bach never even KNEW that he "never moved his voicings in "parallel fifths", as I was so fortunate to learn. Poor Bach! Think what he might have become if he'd only KNOWN?

Music theoriticians expected a scientific result for their pains, such that if you analized the music like that, you could then "invert" these rules.. and create it all the more! I guess. Wrong. We all had to write excercises "like" this composer or that composer, based on the rules any particular one tended towards, which, as we could all agree, had been carefully deciphered. It was masterful work, and had been a reasonable experiment to try. But I guess there were just no genisuses in our class, because there was certainly no magic created.

Then, in a psychology "creativity" class (basically a course of old letters and interviews with famous people about how they "famoused"), someone had asked Bach how he "did it"? He wrote back that he loved to take a late afternoon carriage ride after dinner around sunset and.... listen to the horses hoofs. You can just imagine his drum machine.. "faster, faster, I say!" Canter, Trot, Gallop, Runnnnnnnnn! Suddenly a melody would come into his head, immediately leading to a full blown rendition "in his head", all voices playing, the instruments, the sopranos, the basses, the tenors, the violins.. with all counterpoint in place, from beginning to end. He'd rush home and write it down.

He said if it weren't for his incredible memory, he'd have no music. The man didn't even have an instrument in his hand.

Big Ah Ha! for me. It's all about the melody.. "inside" you. Not "ON" the instrument. Play what you would whistle, is my little piece of advice. If you can't do it the first time at the speed you'd whistle it.. you need to change your ways, because you can't create "live".

On the other hand, I also LOVE Keith Richards of the Stones, and he isn't even a lead player IMO, (though I bet he'd argue that). But he has had "GREAT inventions" with sounds, only mostly stemming from chords.(the weird tunings don't mean shit, it's 6 strings sound no matter what). I'd say he has done the job perfectly, and he's a great guitar player, but has a deeper interest in chordal movements, than melodic line. Or maybe he's too lazy to work on lead lead. I imagine he looks at what Hendrix did and shakes his head in wonder, and I mean like "I wonder how he does that?" Nobody figures it ALL out. Maybe Keith should read my letter, here. I'm kidding, of course, but he would be one of the few who was truly OPEN to new things, and look where that got him. He's an orignal, source mentality.

So, there are a lot of levels, and a lot of ways to make a guitar work, and it's up to each to push the envelope to their own level of satisfaction. Not "ability", but satisfaction. And, none of us really play alike eventually, and that's great for music. I'm often so impressed with other peoples inventions and styles, even if it IS in the boxes, but I still think what Hendrix did was, excuse the hell out of me, higher, often more interesting, and more innovative. Would have loved to have watched him evolve a while longer.

But if everybody said "ok" and learned to play just like Hendrix, with complete freedom to be brave on the neck, and take a few chances of making a "noticeable" mistake from time to time, I'm not convinced it would much matter to anyone but the individual players.

I'm not always sure my perception is right, but I often get the feeling I'm seeing guys feeling like they're faking something because they haven't figured out how to take the next step, and I think this is it for some. On the other hand, I completely skipped the First step most players took. Yet I can rip and roar at lightning speed, or court myself with slow, soft melody and never have to think twice about where my hand is, and however good or bad I am, came from the method I approached learning. So, I wanted to offer up a viable "self-teach" method for those who tend to vear off the "me too" lane in life, but who had not had some of the particular miseries that I did which led me to the insights I followed. Hey, if it doesn't work in a few months, you can always go back. Paul

[mark_dog]

Originally posted by Mindsender:

Moosemaster wrote:

"Mindsenders exploratory eyes-closed-go-a-slide method is great advice, no doubt... and though I'm sure it was not intended this way, any suggestion that it would actually take the place of scales would be highly irresponsible and stupid and infer that players who do use scales somehow limit their freedom, or uniqueness for that matter."

 

Reply:

Well Moose, strange as it may seem to someone who learned the way you did, and most do, I actually AM suggesting forgoing scales completely, and I'll explain, though I don't mind anyone disagreeing from the bottom of their souls, because once you can "do it", it naturally feels as if you got there the right way, and that's fair. But here is the point. Very few CAN "do it", and seem to wonder down deep if they are kind of faking it by the endless boring repetitions they present as "playing" the guitar, and wonder sometimes what the hell "else" they could do.

I've even seen teachers who love Clapton and Hendrix, who can't begin to play like them, and have no idea why not. Seceretly, they'd give their eye teeth to figure out why the audiences go crazy for some guys, but not really them. They think it's just some "magic", some undefinable talent, and truly don't see what is going on "different". That "difference" is hard to fathom, it's subtle, its arguable, but here is my take.

First, just to put to rest the notion that learning scales could possibly "limit" ones freedom or uniqueness, I am not suggesting that. One can get beyond "same ol', same ol') by pressing forward against the tide of known positions by insisting on the melody in you head, rather than the one in your box, which is often harder to play in "real time". But few do, and most probably figure they have actually "arrived" once they can play variations inside a memorized box, with a little fearful drift away here and there in to No-mans land (the enemy where you can make "mistakes"), and I'm not talking about the guys who just want to get laid, but to that sector who wants to go pick up the guitar AFTER they just got laid.

Considering this is all just my opinion, I'll go one step further and suggest that Clapton started off this way, very scale oriented, but his talent and discontent cause him to press to be free on the neck and he "almost" got there, creating some of our best music as a songwriter, and a few very memorable licks, though one has to wonder sometimes how much he was "influenced" when listening to the old black players he so admired, and eventually gave great credit to. Still, I feel his "boxed in roots" in his current works, though he is largely free, again IMO. Malmsteen is another of the same thread, but he got more free on the neck than Eric, though Eric accomplished more because he is just so tastily musical, a great songwriter, and ocassionally a fine singer, though like most great singers, he dosen't have much of a voice, so go figure. Voice is not a skill. "Singing" is.

Now to the possible "proof of the pudding." Hendrix, in his greatest moments (like the star spangled banner at Woodstock), sounds like a kid who picked up a loud thing and started monkeying with it, hitting it with sticks, shaking it, anything to see what it was and how to make it get upset. It is to my ear, as if someone found the first electric guitar, never had a lesson (or ignored it), and gradually searched out what it would do. He ended up with great "sound effects", terriffic rhythmic inventions, and an "ease" with large jumps from here to there without really being sure where he was going to land sometimes, and the ability to pickup on the theme, or change it, wherever he landed. Most of the time he landed about where he wanted, but if not, he did something nice with it anyway, leading an audience to believe he'd done exactly what he'd intended. In other words, he could really "play" the guitar from all the searching around he'd done "outside" the boxes, which I'd say he never paid much attention to (scales).

The difficulty for someone with the usual "learn your scales night and day" slant is that it is TRUE that anyone playing like Hendrix, often finds themselves passing through and in and out of the same boxes scales teach, because that's the do re mi distances (or whatever..major, minor, etc.) that our ears hear and expect as pleasant in western music. But that was an accident. The job Hendrix is doing is following a melodic voice INSIDE his head, not a dictate of his learned hand positions. (Patience, please, I know you're not convinced yet.)

The point is that there is a way to learn that emphasises the experimental, rather than the known, and leads to a far greater "playing" ability, as opposed to coming on stage and repeating mostly memorized moves with a few variations to convince yourself you are fresh. If, however, your "greatest skill" is instead.. being able to move fast away from where you are playing to a new line in your "head" (which changes it's mind a lot more than scales will prepare you for) to sometimes completely "first time there" places, and pick up from their, perhaps in the same theme, you are freer on the neck, and in your melodic mind, than if you have to go from memorized place to memorized place. It's subtle, and hard to spot because of the more similiar than different things we all play, and it's rare to see such freedom for comparison, but that is the difference between great and good.. need I say it, in my opinion.

Think of the most beautiful guitar playing you ever heard, maybe something you've worked your ass off to memorize note for note. There now, you can play it, and sometimes really good if your juiced. But could you come up with something like it? Sometimes yes (great things are often simple) But sometimes there seems to be a disjointed perfection, leaps that were "unlikely", bold, and wonderful. And this guy probably just popped out with it one day "with no practice". It just came out of him. Out of what? Out of his melodic head. Not out of his disciplined fretboard. And you think... My God, how did he do that? Sure, I can play it.. uh, finally. But that guy could have played just about anything he heard.. right off. So the question is, how'd he get there?

I move around a lot, seeking a particular note at the other end of the neck, or mid neck, etc. but I truly can't picture in my mind where that place would be (unless it's a favorite thing I'm repeating because I've come to love it). A person who learned with scales, couldn't imagine finding "that" without having a picture in mind of where it is first, for the most part. I never have a picture, nor could I map out where I was going to play, or had been with a picture of the fingerboard (repeatable little effects like double noting, bends, etc. aside). For me, it's all intuitive distances, free of keys. Sure, I'm IN a key, but it doesn't matter which one, cause I'm just following my own melody, and adding "effects" along the way. Naturally, the old favorite "going home" open A or E at the nut is an exception, as is the the last note at the opposite end, but for the most part, I'd just take off and live with the possible mistakes, either sliding up or down, or just landing in an instinctual place (which by now usually seems to work out). This is very freeing, albeit, more fraut with potential mistakes, but you get very fast at turning those into grace notes that appear to have just lead to the note you actually then "play". This is the opposite of tight assed fearful playing, and leads to a "different" kind of satisfaction.

Believe it or not, considering this "junkyard dog" approach, I'm kind of a perfectionist with a tendency towards classical melodic lines I torture, so I'd think I couldn't stand to play like this, but I love it. Then again, I'm also really impressed with seeing someone workout on know patterns at amazing speeds that impress at first, but these players rarely seem to find deeply moving, creative things, in my experience, then want to go teach it to someone else. Music schools are full of very un-creative teachers who..kind of hate their students, for giving them no great respect. Because something is clearly missing in their own "gift". In fact, most of them really did have a gift, but not the guts to go their own way and explore the nether lands.

Anyway, it's all good fun and so good for the mind, whatever way you do it, and most want FAST, and reliable results. But it's like going FAST.. doing laps around a track. You aren't going anywhere.

So, just thought I try and share the rare for whatever good it does anyone who wants to try something different, like I did. Reason being was I had a music theory class once that turned classical music pieces into math. The bean counters had spent endless years "codefying" music patterns, with every expectation that such division would put Humpty Dumpty back together again in perfect order, and this was their great "gift" to us. But guess what.. Bach never even KNEW that he "never moved his voicings in "parallel fifths", as I was so fortunate to learn. Poor Bach! Think what he might have become if he'd only KNOWN?

Music theoriticians expected a scientific result for their pains, such that if you analized the music like that, you could then "invert" these rules.. and create it all the more! I guess. Wrong. We all had to write excercises "like" this composer or that composer, based on the rules any particular one tended towards, which, as we could all agree, had been carefully deciphered. It was masterful work, and had been a reasonable experiment to try. But I guess there were just no genisuses in our class, because there was certainly no magic created.

Then, in a psychology "creativity" class (basically a course of old letters and interviews with famous people about how they "famoused"), someone had asked Bach how he "did it"? He wrote back that he loved to take a late afternoon carriage ride after dinner around sunset and.... listen to the horses hoofs. You can just imagine his drum machine.. "faster, faster, I say!" Canter, Trot, Gallop, Runnnnnnnnn! Suddenly a melody would come into his head, immediately leading to a full blown rendition "in his head", all voices playing, the instruments, the sopranos, the basses, the tenors, the violins.. with all counterpoint in place, from beginning to end. He'd rush home and write it down.

He said if it weren't for his incredible memory, he'd have no music. The man didn't even have an instrument in his hand.

Big Ah Ha! for me. It's all about the melody.. "inside" you. Not "ON" the instrument. Play what you would whistle, is my little piece of advice. If you can't do it the first time at the speed you'd whistle it.. you need to change your ways, because you can't create "live".

On the other hand, I also LOVE Keith Richards of the Stones, and he isn't even a lead player IMO, (though I bet he'd argue that). But he has had "GREAT inventions" with sounds, only mostly stemming from chords.(the weird tunings don't mean shit, it's 6 strings sound no matter what). I'd say he has done the job perfectly, and he's a great guitar player, but has a deeper interest in chordal movements, than melodic line. Or maybe he's too lazy to work on lead lead. I imagine he looks at what Hendrix did and shakes his head in wonder, and I mean like "I wonder how he does that?" Nobody figures it ALL out. Maybe Keith should read my letter, here. I'm kidding, of course, but he would be one of the few who was truly OPEN to new things, and look where that got him. He's an orignal, source mentality.

So, there are a lot of levels, and a lot of ways to make a guitar work, and it's up to each to push the envelope to their own level of satisfaction. Not "ability", but satisfaction. And, none of us really play alike eventually, and that's great for music. I'm often so impressed with other peoples inventions and styles, even if it IS in the boxes, but I still think what Hendrix did was, excuse the hell out of me, higher, often more interesting, and more innovative. Would have loved to have watched him evolve a while longer.

But if everybody said "ok" and learned to play just like Hendrix, with complete freedom to be brave on the neck, and take a few chances of making a "noticeable" mistake from time to time, I'm not convinced it would much matter to anyone but the individual players.

I'm not always sure my perception is right, but I often get the feeling I'm seeing guys feeling like they're faking something because they haven't figured out how to take the next step, and I think this is it for some. On the other hand, I completely skipped the First step most players took. Yet I can rip and roar at lightning speed, or court myself with slow, soft melody and never have to think twice about where my hand is, and however good or bad I am, came from the method I approached learning. So, I wanted to offer up a viable "self-teach" method for those who tend to vear off the "me too" lane in life, but who had not had some of the particular miseries that I did which led me to the insights I followed. Hey, if it doesn't work in a few months, you can always go back. Paul

that's long

[Easeback]

Yes it is Markdog, yes it is. I'm still trying to get through it.

[Easeback]

Alright, mindsender I've finally made it through your message here and I'm trying my best to understand what you're saying. If the scales have already figured out what area you should be playing to make everything sound "in tune" (for a lack of better terms) why not shut your eyes and go through scales? It's as if they already figured out what sounds good together so why not just make the scales sound the way you want them too? Also, what if I've already started playing an acoustic do you recommend the same style of learning with one of those?

 

Just curious and interested. I'm a newbie by the way.

[PBBPaul]

It's long alright but very insightful. Man, I don't have the time or patience to type that much. Reread it a couple of times. What Mindsender is saying is that there are two basic schools of learning the guitar: 1. Conventional theory and 2. the more abstract Learning to play the music in your head. There are merits to both. I believe that a certain amount of self-discipline is necessary but too much can be detrimental to the music. The most important "lesson" I ever had was when someone told me that the notes between the scales were just as viable as the notes in the scale. As a beginner, I'd recommend learning chords, major, minor and pentatonic blues scales but think of them as jumping off points only. NEVER think of them as limits. Then use the notes in between to play the music in your head. Let someone else come up with a name for the scale. Just my opinion.

 

Anyway, welcome and enjoy!

 

Paul

[patrick_dont_fret]

Originally posted by Adrenalin418:

Haha, 418 is my birthday. That'd be interesting if I was born two days later though.

Adolf Hitler was born on April 20th. Random little known fact. I was researching the history of the well-known 420-Day (otherwise known as Earth Day) and I found that out.

[Jedi]

Mindsender that was a great post. I've often wondered what made players like Hendrix, Eddie Hazel, and Coltrane(I know he's not a guitarist but work with me) so special to me. And I think your observation is correct, these gentlemen were out of the box. I learned playing scales, and I couldn't figure out why people seemed to connect to my playing. Now, I think it is because I never tried to learn another person's style. I never tried to figure out, during my first five years of playing, what another guy was playing. I think all of that time using the scales as a guide helped me create a very unique sound. My own sound. Unfortunately, I hit a wall. I couldn't make the leap from the Pentatonic minor scale. That scale up and down the fretboard contained me. The way I got out of the box was by becoming obsessed with guitar noodling. I played all the time. Watching movies, on the phone, in the morning, in the middle of the night, before work, at work, after work. I started to understand the landscape of sound with in my instrument, well both instruments( my body, and my guitar). And soon enough I could play what I felt. I ran into a lot of guys that could play rings around me, they could do all the Van Halen tricks, or Metallica tricks, or the Hendrix and SRV stuff, but that couldn't do their own stuff. I think that's why I got the respect I received when I played. I'm guessing of course. Anyway, having a child I don't play all the time like I used to, but I think my playing is still pretty good. I'm still following my heart.

 

Hope this makes some sense,

 

Jedi

[Mindsender]

To: PbbPaul

Thanks for the kindred soul-ism. Loved that pearl you passed on about the notes inbetween the scale notes being of equal value. Problem is that when you tell someone to go play them, they don't know how, becasue they sound wrong from where they are presently playing a note. Point is not to ever knowingly be in a box, and then slide/intuit to the next note, or place. The misses become incorporated rapidly as grace notes as you get faster, and you will forever have somewhat MORE misses, but it's a price worth paying IMH.

TO: Jedi

"Noodling", sounds less important than it is. That's YOU noodling. That's where the neat little inventive licks come from. Intros to songs, etc. that were someone's great invention just dying for a spot in something commmercial to ever be heard. I'm gonna have to go spend some time with Coltrane. Thanks. Another guy who has the feeling down pat is Nat King Cole, though he's not a guitarist either. Celine Dione has it on "Love Go On" to the max. This "musical" feeling is "the High thing", regardless of how it comes out. And that's the problem with "let me entertain (impress thehelloutofyou) you" guitar playing. Too many of these guys don't realize the beauty and IMPRESSIVENESS of a simple melody line. Listen to the ninth symphony. Of course, I love to let it rip too, but it gets old if you go much beyond climatic moments. Better to be left wanting for a little more, than bombarded. Paul

[Dave da Dude]

I gotta agree with the acoustic guitar first thing, for three reasons;

 

a) It don't cost much, especially a cheap one.

 

b) If you can play a cheap acoustic guitar, you can play ANYTHING.

 

c) I keep hearing that any acoustic guitar player can play electric, but not vice versa. I started on acoustic, but I'm still waiting for confirmation that I can play electric. I'm not convinced yet, but...

 

Just play SOMETHING!!!

 

Dave

[moosemaster]

DUDE ....?!

 

I'm now very interested to hear you play. However. You are starting to frighten me. Just a little.

[michael saulnier]

Anifa,

 

Another, "beginner thread" jam packed with advice... some of it actually good!

 

guitplayer

[DJDM]

Hey all!

OK I am not a guitar player nor am I a regular in here but may I just say that it is really refreshing to read (anywhere) this much support for a new member!!! Makes me want to pick up a Humbucker, (which sounds faintly naughty), and play a few chords.

That's all I had to say!

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

- DJDM

[RM]

There are several good starters out there now...

 

Your budget is the determining factor...

 

Make sure you also get a decent case, and from there, start playing amps...

 

You are looking at at least a grand, for a decent rig...

 

Buying a cheap guitar, is not the same as a cheap amp...

 

The neck and action, cheap pickups etc..are never worth the after thought on a $300 dollar instrument, and frankly, no matter what the name on the headstock, they all come from a few aisian factorys, made en masse for almost every all of the famous makers,

 

Dean has a carved top, made in europe, solid body with dressed fret edges, for not a lot of money....West L. A. Music carries them and a bunch of other people...

 

Your instrument in about the mid 500 range, with a retail of a grand or slightly above, is a good range to negotiate in...

 

Peavy has a Bandit series of amps, which offer a lot of bang for buck, compared to the Fenders and other names in the 300 to 500 range

 

Technically after you find a decent instrument, learn chord theory, period....if you don't you will progress ever so slowly, even if the talent wells up...without thta basic fundamental understanding...it will take longer nad be tougher...

 

Of course they will try to seel you a decent set of cables, that also can cost some, if your willing to invest in copper cables, Planet Waves an Monster come to mind, beyond those would be Zaolla...

 

It's a great idea to have a mentor or take some lessons...

 

Even if your buds think that sucks...

 

Have fun,

 

Rob

[Dave da Dude]

Hey Moosemaster,

 

10/20/02,

DUDE ....?!

 

I'm now very interested to hear you play. However. You are starting to frighten me. Just a little.

 

I'm sorry I didn't see your post until just now.

 

First of all, I still don't play much, I'm trying to get back into the habit. Just screwin' around right now.

 

As far as "the Dude" thing, here's the "Real Story". One of my favorite movies is "Pocketful of Miracles" with Glenn Ford, Bette Davis and Ann Margaret. It's a comedy where Bette Davis is a "street lady" that sells apples for a living. Glenn Ford (Dave the Dude) is a mobster who buys an apple from Bette Davis (Apple Annie) for good luck whenever he stretches his limits with the mob or pulls a job. Ann Margaret is Apple Annie's (Bette Davis) unknown daughter who goes to school and lives in Spain. Ann Margaret gets engaged to a young man who is in Spain's elite social (and financial) circles. Dave the Dude's girlfriend talks him into helping Apple Annie look like one of the one hundred in NYC.

 

In a scene where the party plans (including the Mayor of NYC and the govenor of NY State) seem to be falling apart, the butler tries to sneak out. Here's my favorite line and the reason I go (on this forum only) as Dave the Dude; Dave the Dude to the butler, "Where do you think you're goin'?"; the butler "Well sir, I was just leaving before the sad scene." (or something to that effect), "With two broken legs?" replies Dave the Dude; "My legs aren't broken.." starts the butler, "Oh, I see. Very well put sir." as the butler returns to his station.

 

That's how subtle I usually am.

 

FWIW, Dave the Dude