Stereotypes

[Teahead]

Henry there are so many great points in that post. Too many in fact for me to even begin to draw comparisons. I asked the question, kind of tongue in cheek, kind of hoping to get an answer, you gave me every answer!

The most luminous image you drew for me was the Andy Warhol metaphor. Andy capitalised on the 'dumbing down' and cheapening of our culture, and the arts that make up a significant part of it. If everyone clocks this idea, then ultimately generations are deprived of ever knowing what the genuine article is or was! We get pretenders to pretenders as our entertainers.

I really want to ask you if you think this phenomenon is exclusive to music, or can it be seen in every aspect of our lives today? I think you would tend toward the latter given the tone of your post, I look forward to hearing from you again Henry, thanks for your insight.

Tea

[Istislah]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

Originally posted by Teahead:

I'm not pissed!

Whew! Good Tea. Got past the main one. Now if I can just keep the floodgates from opening up on me . . .

 

 

It'd be like Rembrant or his comtemporaries studying their whole lives to paint a portrait and some guy comes along, draws a stick figure or worse Andy Warhol drops by with his Campbell Soup cans, or someone else comes along and makes a ton of money and says "You don't need to draw and paint! All you need is Freehand and Photoshop!" Sometimes I think my kids actually think they're playing basketball when they're playing a video game of playing basketball!

 

We as a society are forgetting how to DO. Not just do music, but do ANYTHING but sit in front of a TV or computer terminal. I resemble that remark.

 

End of rant for now. I've got to go do.

I hope this isn't interpreted as the beginning of a flood... I certainly don't mean it that way. Before I begin though, I should point out that, while I have no intention of denigrating you as a person or being mean or ugly or offense. However, rarely have I read a string of assertations I agree less with, not so much in their primary content, but in their implications and the viewpoint they espouse.

 

I clipped out the particular section above because it illustrates one thing that I see as wrong with your stated point of view.

 

First of all, Warhol could draw quite well. The fact that he didn't (or at least that he is not famous for doing so) has nothing to do with his talent and everything to do with movements in art. No one who knew anything about that world would imply so flippantly that Warhol was not a skilled and fiercely talented visual artist. Therefore either you failed to support your assertion in service of brevity, or you've done exactly the thing to the world of art criticism that you complain about modern musicians doing to the world of music.

 

Secondly, Photoshop is a tool . A very powerful image manipulation tool , but still a tool . Guess what one sounds like when one claims that it is "easy" to use. If you can't paint, you can't paint. No program can teach you to see perspective, shading, depth.

 

I used to play video game sports. I stopped because I don't know a damn thing about sports. Games these days require you to. Your kids may not be "playing" basketball. But I bet they're learning something about it.

 

Popular music right now is in the middle of a minimalist period. It will pass, and if the history you respect so much (and rightfully so) is any judge it will be followed by a period of baroque complexity so staggering that it will be silly. Prompting musicians to make a statement with simplicity...

 

One interesting thing about the world as it is now. For the first time in history we're going to have a startlingly complete record of all the phases of that cycle. And I'm sure that there will still be Beatles fans around at the height of the next wave of complexity. That's new. Periods of musical minimalism aren't.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Teahead:

Henry there are so many great points in that post. Too many in fact for me to even begin to draw comparisons. I asked the question, kind of tongue in cheek, kind of hoping to get an answer, you gave me every answer!

Yeah baby!

And I have yet to get tarred and feathered! BTW to thrashhole369: I'm leading a protest of pointy guitars on my front lawn even as we speak! I'm burning one in effigy.

 

The most luminous image you drew for me was the Andy Warhol metaphor. Andy capitalised on the 'dumbing down' and cheapening of our culture, and the arts that make up a significant part of it. If everyone clocks this idea, then ultimately generations are deprived of ever knowing what the genuine article is or was! We get pretenders to pretenders as our entertainers.

I really want to ask you if you think this phenomenon is exclusive to music, or can it be seen in every aspect of our lives today?

Well I think you know. I think society as a whole is in the wastepaper basket following in music's wake. People no longer see plays, read books in the way of literature, movies are reduced to sensation and sensationalism, as are TV and news programs. Entertainment is an internet frenzy of masterbatory downloading, or video gaming somambulism. Sorry. That was a really bad sentence, but I think you know what I mean!

 

I think much of it has to do with America's wanderlust. A new nation, still relatively speaking, lost it's roots. Good perhaps in comparison to our respectable European antecedents who took root to their land and became resistent to change. (I'm just bound and determined to offend you, aren't I?). But it just seems we either go from one extreme to the other. Here in America each family tends to move, across country, to another city. There's a false sense of motion and a fear of staying in place. I think this even affects us in our perception of the arts. Each successive generation has to have it's own identity. But the falseness of this, as far as I'm concerned, is that these social identities are thought of as GROUP identities. We beings are not groups. Those who identify as goth, thrash, speedmetal, jazz, hip hop and are therefore ruled by the mores of those groups, the rules defined by who knows who, whoever decides the taste for that group. Spread by media, internet, word of mouth. Taste is always defined by an individual. Always. When we give up our right to decide for ourselves we end up with a dwindling spiral of stupidity in the arts, society, etc.

[henryrobinett]

Welcome to the debate! Welcome to the forum too. I have to run and pick up my kids, but quickly. I know Warhol can draw. That's not germane. I don't like Warhol as a visual artist. Just me. Whether he can draw or not is simply not germane to my point, I don't think. Photoshop IS a tool. I know plenty of great artists, painting, graphic designers who learned their craft prior to PS, photographers, etc.. I know it's a tool. I THINK that's besides the point. Maybe not.

 

I think you might be right about the minimalistic period we're in. You might be wrong. In the process we might be losing the KNOWLEDGE; the technology of the music and those who actually DO it.

[revolead]

Originally posted by NMcGuitar:

rev -

It just occured to me while reading your last post (mentioning your trumpet background) that I might have caused offense earlier with my previous statment:

All that said, it drives me kind of nuts too. If I hear the "joke" about "How do you make a guitarist shut up?" ("Put sheet music in front of him") one more time from some arrogant trumpet player I'll lose my mind

.

 

Believe me, none was intended (to you or virtually all other trumpet players). I picked "trumpet" because the most recent experience I've had of this was with this total jerk who kept going on with these kind of jokes --until we actually started playing and he really looked like a fool. It just so happened that he was a trumpet player.

 

Sorry.

Don't worry at all. I laugh at that joke, but it makes me upset to. I don't worry, there are plenty of trumpet jokes. I'll admit we are snobby.

[NMcGuitar]

Don't worry at all. I laugh at that joke, but it makes me upset to. I don't worry, there are plenty of trumpet jokes. I'll admit we are snobby.

[NMcGuitar]

Hmmmmmmm.....

I wonder.....

Does Phil Spector get monotyped?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by bitterling:

Consider your average guitarist and your average violinist. What do you think the age of those average players would have been when they started to play their instruments? I'd be willing to be that the violinist was much, much younger, and that the violinist had much, much more formal instruction.

Well yeah, but most violinists also intend to play classical or orchestral music, which requires reading. A country fiddler might be a different story. The others who've mentioned that a lot of this debate is about genre, are correct. If you want to be an classical or jazz player, or do session work, well yeah, you gotta read notation. In rock and most other popular music (country, blues, folk, etc.) you don't need to and in many cases are better off without it. I don't see the point of being a "snob" in either direction.

 

FWIW, I started playing piano at 3, violin at 9, and guitar at 12. Guitar was the instrument I stuck with, because it was the instrument where I felt I could express what I wanted to. My classically trained mother taught me to read music when I was a kid, but I never enjoyed it, despite my usual love for learning anything language related. I preferred to "pick stuff out by ear" as I called it at the time. I found too that I had a very good memory and a lot of times when my teachers thought I was sight reading, I'd simply memorized the parts.

 

Once I picked up the guitar my reading skills pretty much fell by the wayside. I simply didn't need them or see the point of using them to play what I wanted to play. If somebody calls for playing a song in a different key, I have no problem with that - that's a skill that's relevant to what I do. Reading a basic chord chart to learn the structure of a song, no problem either. Playing complex chords, well maybe. If I need one for something, I learn it. I feel very much in control of my progress on guitar - if I want to learn something or have a need for it, I'm more than happy to put in the effort. But with reading music, I've just never really needed to. Cuz believe me, if I had a need to, I would.

 

Also Henry, I don't share your impatience with rehearsals. I enjoy rehearsing and I think for a band to spend many long hours playing together and working up new stuff, brings something to the table that you can't get by writing up charts and having everybody learn things in a minimum of time. I'm not trying to put down anybody who does this - they're just different ways of working and neither should denigrate the other, if it works. We can all think of countless examples on BOTH sides of this equation, that DON'T work. That doesn't mean either one can't.

[Adamixoye]

On the whole "Latin" thing...

 

I have to say that I come down on Tea's side of the issue, and I think it was a great analogy. And I would say Henry, if you want to become a "Latin" scholar, then great! More power to you. But it shouldn't invalidate those who have become very eloquent in "English" without knowing the source material.

 

I will add the caveat that reading music is still more relevant than the example of reading Latin, so the analogy is a little off in terms of degree. But I think that someone who can't read music can still be as good as they come in terms of musicianship...as good as, just different.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Istislah:

 

First of all, Warhol could draw quite well. The fact that he didn't (or at least that he is not famous for doing so) has nothing to do with his talent and everything to do with movements in art. No one who knew anything about that world would imply so flippantly that Warhol was not a skilled and fiercely talented visual artist.

Don't know about that. I'm certainly no art historian, but I know and appreciate a little bit about modern art. My tastes run more toward expressionism, old though that may be by todays standards. Impressionism, much of cubism of Braques. I loved Morandi, Kline, Motherwell, Giacometti, De Kooning. But I'm not a fan of Warhols. But I chose Warhol to illustrate his comment on pop art and society. BTW I don't like Elvis either

 

I have several close friends who are serious artists and are doing pretty damned well in that world internationally who I think would seriously disagree with your statement. But that's OK. You're welcome to your opinion as I am mine.

 

But re Photoshop: do you really think using this tool gives the artist equal footing to Rembrant who actually studied shading, perspective, light to the nth degree? Does using a computer algorithm compare to what the human being can achieve given his mere hands?

 

It's like folks who can use a sequencer and a drum machine. Do they really think they know how to GROOVE? Because you can program and quantize how will that ever equal playing in a band with 3-5 or more members, where you're locked?

 

Believe me I'm really not a Luddite. I've been using computer technology and sequencers, drum machines, since the mid 80s. I use softsynths too! And I don't put people who use them down. I just think we're losing a grasp on our real technology: ourselves.

 

Lee - As I said I know my POV is a minority POV. Hey I'm a minority of a minority of a minority of a minority. I'm fine with that. But as my time is always very limited I hate wasting it. I like to start from jump street. I'd rather not waste time TEACHING somebody his parts. Let's spend that two hour rehearsal working on the details of the music. That's me though.

 

Adamixoye - How can the latin analogy be relevant if it's still used widely and even almost exclusively by others, including me? Perhaps not in your field of music and inarguably the dominant forms of music today, except for orchestral music, musicals, TV music by and large, movie music, by and large, jazz, studio music - all which still make a substantial portion of musical revenue.

[Beermouse]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

[QB I don't see the point of being a "snob" in either direction.[/QB]

Neither do I. Sorry if I came off as such; I just felt there was a need to illustrate the point.

 

For the most part, I don't look differently at anyone based on their ability to read music or not. Of course, that changes depending upon the setting I'm in. (You're coming to an orchestra audition and you can't read music? You're going out for a jazz group and you can't improvise based off of this scale?) For what it's worth, I can read treble, alto and bass clefs quite fluently. I figure it's just another tool at my disposal, and really, another tool's almost never detrimental.

[skipclone 1]

I don`t know if I`m up to adding two cents here so I`ll try a penny...there`s no doubt that, for someone who really wants a career in music, not just to be a pop star, that education is key, as much as in any other field. As far as guitarists being `loud, arrogant...` that`s often true and for good reason. That`s what it takes to be out front, to be the musical center of a group, to hold the attention of hundreds or even thousands of people, without being physically perfect. I can`t agree more about the fact that the guitar shouldn`t get a free ride as a part of a band all instruments being equal But if we`re on the subject of uncomfortable truths, in this day and age that`s not the case. The sax and the piano before had their monent in the sun, before they were pretty much steamrollered by the electric guitar. Historically, the guitar really coincided with the youth movement as a solo instrument. There were some major figures before that of course, but the guitar continues to be identified with the values of youth-spontaneity, energy, inventiveness. Guitarists captured the voice of a generation, IMHO in a way that no other instrument has. Many guiatists, again IMO, carry around a subconscious conflict, to wit: I want to speak to the moment, to NOW, I don`t want the image of some bow tied nerd reading a chart with bifocals. So how do I do that, but still be versatile, to be able to be more than just an empty image? so yes, guitarists have a credibility problem but it`s part of the associations that we all inherit when we decide to play the instrument seriously. We can accept it or rebel against it.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

But as my time is always very limited I hate wasting it. I like to start from jump street. I'd rather not waste time TEACHING somebody his parts.

Me either. We DON'T waste time teaching each other parts - we give each other demos and all show up at rehearsal knowing the basic structure of the songs, most of the time. Rehearsal time is not spent TEACHING, but all LEARNING the parts together, in other words, working out together what each person is going to play and letting the song develop organically. We often come up with stuff spontaneously at rehearsals too, which ends up turning into a song. That IMO is the essence of a band, at least a rock band, and a really fun and vital part of the process.

[skipclone 1]

I totally agree with that-I am a big believer in rehearsals. It`s about more than just being able to play, a lot more. BTW, many players here use charts, but it`s purely a matter of practicality. Rehearsal spaces are expensive (as I`ve found out the hard way), and it`s cheaper if everyone can play from a chart. And it brings the predictable down side-the chemistry in a lot of bands is nonexistent-so is the audience response.

[henryrobinett]

Lee - I'm not trying to invalidate those who do not read so much as pointing out that there are those who do read and find it very useful. I've done many a rehearsal the way you describe and it's fine. No problem. Most of my rehearsals are done in the way I've described and for me they work much better. I'm not saying one way is OBJECTIVELY better than another. For me this works better. You prefer your way, although its not a true test because you haven't said whether you've also done it by reading.

 

As I've done it both ways I must therfore be right.

 

I'm basically defending my right to read, be a luddite and support the Let's Not Lose Our Latin Roots Collective.

[Lee Flier]

Oh, I realize there are those who find reading very useful. I have no problem with that, which is why I said that I don't see the point of being a "snob" in either direction. I'm totally aware that in situations like yours it's imperative to know how to read. In situations like mine it would just get in the way. And that says nothing bad about either of us.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

BTW, many players here use charts, but it`s purely a matter of practicality. Rehearsal spaces are expensive (as I`ve found out the hard way), and it`s cheaper if everyone can play from a chart. And it brings the predictable down side-the chemistry in a lot of bands is nonexistent-so is the audience response.

Yep... I ran into this problem in L.A. a lot, for the same reason (rehearsal space was expensive). All I wanted was a band that would just get together and play a LOT, and develop a signature sound and a real chemistry, and have a good deal of commitment to each other. I realized after awhile that wasn't going to happen in L.A., so I left. For me, that was definitely the right thing to do.

[doc taz]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

Lee - I'm not trying to invalidate those who do not read so much as pointing out that there are those who do read and find it very useful. I've done many a rehearsal the way you describe and it's fine. No problem. Most of my rehearsals are done in the way I've described and for me they work much better. I'm not saying one way is OBJECTIVELY better than another. For me this works better. You prefer your way, although its not a true test because you haven't said whether you've also done it by reading.

 

As I've done it both ways I must therfore be right.

 

I'm basically defending my right to read, be a luddite and support the Let's Not Lose Our Latin Roots Collective.

Count me in, henry!

 

Though I'm kind of a slow reader, I am getting back up to speed (somewhat), and poring through some theory books myself. That being said, I'm not always worried if the musicians I play with can't read. I'm worried only if the musicians I work with can't agree/compromise on anything. That spells trouble.

[Chipotle]

I think I've got three thoughts on this discussion.

 

1. There are many subtleties in music which would be completely lost in written notation. For example, the old bottleneck blues players (and singers for that matter). You must learn this by ear. Coltrane's Meditations. How would you notate a style of music in which the manner that the note is played, the feeling, is more important than the actual note itself? An improvised style has to be learned by developing intuition and learning to react to other musicians.

 

2. Rembrandt could know everything about light and shading, but it's still a picture of some rich guy on his pony. I can relate to the Campbell's can better.

 

3. I think it was Jeff Beck who said, "Nobody is going to clap because you hit all the dots on the page, they will clap if they like what they here." So, do what you have to do to play well. Personally, I think great music is the result of great ideas and an idea will be great regardless of whether it also exists on paper. Reading works well for structured, large groups of musicians. However, there are many types of shows where if I saw a musician was reading his parts, I would think he was not giving it 110%.

[henryrobinett]

I suppose part of it comes from the type of music one is exposed to. I listened to a LOT of classical music growing up. I was always drawn to orchestra musicians as well as band musicians. I was ALWAYS interested in the great composers, particularly modern from Stravinsky, Hindemith, Prokofiev, Elliot Carter, even Steve Riech. This music was wouldn't have been actualized without the written language. So to me, even though I was also drawn to the music of Hendrix, Page, Beck - music to me meant the whole nine yards. I fancied I wanted to be a composer. There was so much valid music that was written. Why throw it out just because you don't?

 

So rock, funk, r&b, is not based on written form, or doesn't have to be. They're basically modern folk musics. Even a lot of r&b has orchestra musicians playing written parts though.

 

Listen my position is quite unpopular on these forums because most people can't read. That's fine. But to take pride in not reading is quite another thing.

 

Sure bottle neck guitar players, unless you're a studio bottle neck player, has little need typically to read in order to perform that act of playing.

 

Rembrandt could know everything about light and shading, but it's still a picture of some rich guy on his pony. I can relate to the Campbell's can better.

Well I think that's my point, isn't it? On so many levels.

 

BTW I DID see an audience break into loud applause at someone reading dots on a page. I was at a club where Mike Stern was playing with alto saxist Steve Slagel. Steve pulled out a chart and told Mike we're gonna play this. Mike's eyes got big and said, "You want me to read this now? Oh man, I can't do that! How fast is it?" He was quite nervous. In a humorous panic he nailed this fast and complicated line and right after reading the opening section before the solos the audience broke out in thunderous applause. Not easy for a guitar player. Just thought I sight that one.

[doc taz]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

BTW I DID see an audience break into loud applause at someone reading dots on a page. I was at a club where Mike Stern was playing with alto saxist Steve Slagel. Steve pulled out a chart and told Mike we're gonna play this. Mike's eyes got big and said, "You want me to read this now? Oh man, I can't do that! How fast is it?" He was quite nervous. In a humorous panic he nailed this fast and complicated line and right after reading the opening section before the solos the audience broke out in thunderous applause. Not easy for a guitar player. Just thought I sight that one.

Very interesting moment there. I'd feel exactly like Mike there. Good thing he didn't wimp out. The mark of a real trooper.

[Psychotronic]

Interesting how a HORN player (read: someone who never has to play a chord) would bash a guitarist about not knowing his chords.

 

I remember seeing a caption under a picture of some jazz guitarist (whose name escapes me)in Guitar Player when I was a kid (early 80's maybe?) who said verbatim, "Sure, rock guys can play licks, but can they play over a dimished scale?"... YES, some of us CAN, ya prick!

[Psychotronic]

Where did it begin in my estimation? Hold on. Buddy Holly. Then the Beatles. Then Peter Frampton, Sex Pistols, The Ramones, Run DMC, NWA, Nirvana. But when Frampton went platinum forget it. All bets were off. Music was ruined from then on. It was ALL about the money.

Alright. Hang on a minute. I've got to take umbrage with your assessment of Frampton -- that guy can play. He has rock chops and jazz chops and, even back in the 70's, was far ahead of nearly all rock players of the time. While I understand your point, at least that explosion happened with someone who actually has a command of their instrument.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

I suppose part of it comes from the type of music one is exposed to. I listened to a LOT of classical music growing up. I was always drawn to orchestra musicians as well as band musicians. I was ALWAYS interested in the great composers, particularly modern from Stravinsky, Hindemith, Prokofiev, Elliot Carter, even Steve Riech. This music was wouldn't have been actualized without the written language. So to me, even though I was also drawn to the music of Hendrix, Page, Beck - music to me meant the whole nine yards. I fancied I wanted to be a composer. There was so much valid music that was written. Why throw it out just because you don't?

Henry, I'm not questioning your own decisions in terms of your musical direction and what works for you, but it's your presumptions about other people's decisions that are bothering me.

 

There seems to be an underlying idea in your head that anybody who can't read music is simply trying to justify the fact that they can't read music, or don't want to put in the time to learn, and that's why they reject the idea of playing classical or jazz. Like I said, I was exposed to a ton of classical and jazz (mostly big band really) growing up. That's what my parents were into, and one of my cousins held a first violin chair in the Boston Symphony for 43 years until he retired a couple of years ago. I learned to read music at an early age and, like I said, studied classical piano and violin as a kid. I didn't do it because my parents forced me to - I wanted to. So I certainly didn't "throw away" all this great music simply because it was a lot of work or couldn't read music.

 

However (and this is maybe the part you have a hard time getting your head around), even though I love classical and some jazz immensely, it simply doesn't speak to me emotionally on the same level that rock'n'roll does. And so, I decided to become a specialist. It wasn't like I just got up one morning and decided to do this, it's just that rock'n'roll became my passion and that's all I wanted to do. I still love listening to jazz and classical, but I don't play it. I simply wanted to get as deep as possible into rock'n'roll, and therefore my reading skills became pretty much irrelevent and fell by the wayside. They just were not necessary to what I wanted to do and in fact seem to detract from it.

 

Listen my position is quite unpopular on these forums because most people can't read.

No, that isn't why your opinion is unpopular. It's unpopular because you seem to presume that people who don't read simply can't, or are too lazy to put in the time to learn. It's not as if reading music is such a profoundly difficult thing and none of the bright folks here could learn it if they didn't want to. In my case, I felt the time was far better spent working on other aspects of my playing. Still feel that way. I presume other folks feel the same cuz I've heard plenty of great players who don't read.

 

That's fine. But to take pride in not reading is quite another thing.

I don't see anybody "taking pride" in not reading, it's just not relevant to everybody, therefore those who don't read refuse to be ashamed of it no matter how much you'd like them to. I mean, I could learn to play the tuba too - that would be something musical and lots of great music has been made with tubas. But it would be a waste of my time considering what I do, to become a tuba player. It would take away from the time and focus that I feel I need to put into guitar. Therefore it would irk me if somebody insisted on trying to make me feel I'm somehow less of a musician if I don't play the tuba. And reading music seems about as relevant to what I do musically as playing the tuba. I'm perfectly content to go to the symphony now and then and watch other people play the tuba - and read music.

[AlChuck]

I think you also need to consider that the instrument fosters this to some extent. To many guitarists, chords are shapes - they move up and down the neck accordingly.

Another point about the instrument and how its nature relates to reading -- the guitar is unusual in that it it a polyphonic instrument that has the same note in many different places. Polyphonic intruments have the extra challenge of having to read chords. Having the same not available in several more-or-less equally convenient places means almost any line can be played in several ways, and it's not always clear what the "best," most efficient, or most logical way to finger it is.

 

This makes reading guitar music much harder than for monophonic instruments like sax and violin, and arguably harder than reading for piano, where there is only a single key to sound any given note.

[henryrobinett]

Lee - It just seems you haven't really gotten what I've said at all. Have you actually READ my posts?

[strat0124]

How bout them CUBS? : ) Boy we are a sensitive bunch....trying to express ourselves with literary mastery and wonder why we collectively don't understand each other. I think this whole conversation can be brought down to simple terms......being able to read music is a huge plus, but it ain't everything! And rightly so. I know Andreas Vollenweider can read and compose, but you don't see him with a music stand on stage. But it doesn't detract from a given musicians credability if he or she does! My fave, Lucinda Williams has a music stand on stage, and she still is GREAT! And I doubt she can read notation......not that I know that.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Psychotronic:

Interesting how a HORN player (read: someone who never has to play a chord) would bash a guitarist about not knowing his chords.

 

I know a lot of horn players who know a lot more about chords than a lot of guitar players. Many of them play piano. Many of them actually DO play chords on their horns. Arpeggios anyone? How do you think horn players navigate themselves through complex chord changes when soloing? Some horn players, especially after Coltrane, superimpose other substitute chord changes on top of the ones the band is playing underneath them.

[revolead]

Originally posted by Psychotronic:

Interesting how a HORN player (read: someone who never has to play a chord) would bash a guitarist about not knowing his chords.

 

I remember seeing a caption under a picture of some jazz guitarist (whose name escapes me)in Guitar Player when I was a kid (early 80's maybe?) who said verbatim, "Sure, rock guys can play licks, but can they play over a dimished scale?"... YES, some of us CAN, ya prick!

I'm not sure if that horn player thing was directed at me or not, but in defense of trumpet players everywhere, we never have to read chords, but we still know our theory. I will admit though that when I started playing guitar I did learn a great deal more about theory that I never would have learned playing a single not instrument. And believe me it helps.

I totally understand that diminshed scale remark. It always frusturates me (and it happens on this forum as well) when someone assumes my opinion is completley invalid just because I like Malmsteen or would prefer a Recto half-stack to a Bad Cat. Sorry guys, but being a metal or rock player doesn't mean we don't appreciate clean tones (I love the Fender Twin Reverb) or modal improvisation.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Istislah:

I was making a point about the way you seem to have formed your opinion and the ways in which that process is functionally similar to the trends you are complaining about in modern art/culture. i.e., making judgements on quality based not so much on any learned or objective standard of "importance" or "quality" but only on a gut level "appreciation". The fact that you can list a series of artists that you do appreciate in no way diminishes that your stated opinion was as ill supported and arbitrary as a twelve-year old's appreciation for N'Sync. As I mentioned, this was possibly due to a need for brevity; I'm not challanging you to defend your postion on Warhol; I'm challanging you to imagine that a person who likes abstract art or even modern pop music might not just be culturally degenerate; Maybe they get something you don't;

I don't mean to insinuate that because a person has taste that differ from mine that person is perforce degenerate. No, to me Warhol's pop art, much as Lichtenstein, was a statement on modern culture, kitch and bereft of traditional senses of state and aesthetic. Now I don't like him, and I was taking a stab at him and those who like him I suppose. I DO think there's an aesthetic and a general malaise in this society that is reflected in the art of our day. This is my bias. I don't pretend to be void of biases. I don't pretend to be perfect either. Never have and I never will be perfect.

 

My criticsm is not so gut level. It's based upon his subject matter. And this probably comes to the crux of my disagreements with so many on these forums, and in society as a whole. I don't value pop art. I think those things that have true intrinsic value aren't shallow enough to be disseminated so thoroughly through the media. A total generality and has many, many exceptions I know. I despise TV commercials and commercialism in general. I think that when works of art are reduced to financially motivated products the purpose is skewed and necessarily some of the judgements re what is good/bad are offset both from the perspective of the artist and those of the "consumer".

 

The fact that for years in order to play music you had to spend thousands upon thousands of hours to be truly accomplished; learning the craft, physically hands on craft, of playing an instrument. Now I do accept that many ways it's not done like this any more. Guitar players are one of the few last hold outs I'm glad to say. But I think it's sad that it's no longer being done like this as much as it once was. I think we're losing something in the course of it.

 

Claiming that perspective, light and shadow and all the tricks/techniques of Rembrant are not taught, studied and valued is just wrong. There are just as many fine art academies out there as there ever were-

I'm not saying that they're not out there. I'm not saying that at all. Having students and a curriculum is not the same as having students willing to learn and seeing relevance.

 

A sequencer is a tool. If you don't have the Groove then it won't give it too you. If you do it's a way to use it that didn't exist before.

 

Not quite. I don't believe that because you can understand the nuances of groove quantize means that you can pick up a guitar or bass and groove with a group of live musicians. Two entirely different things. You can recognize what a groove is when you hear it, but can you play it without the technology developed and defined by somebody elses algorithms?

 

There's no reason that the system we use is the best one (other than a reasonable assumtion that a lot of people know it) Perhaps a different system would be easier to learn, read, write and comprehend and would be able to capture more than the current one. I wish anyone who wants to try great luck in constructing a new and ultra modern system for musical notation. But I do think we need to have one.

There's tablature which is not adequate. Schiller tried to come up with a new one. That failed too. Modern composers like Penderecki and Stockhausen for examples, have tried new techniques, but the age old system of standard written notation is with us and works universally.