Page 1 of 3
#1
Well...

I am an classical schooled piano player, and have been playing for 12 years and now i'm getting into guitar. So i guess i got my theory down. Now from reading on this forum i have one question... whats the problem with people learning scales? Or maybe piano differs here from guitar but to me it seems if you know the major scale in every single position of the neck and you know the formula to create any other scale, it's all you need. And the very same goes for chords, if you know the notes on your fretboard and the way a chord is created, whats the point of learning a book filled with chords?

Why learn scales for dorian patterns, learn scale for melodic minors, harmonic minors etc? Again, maybe this is different to piano playing where i would just use the formula over my major scale and play the desired scale... or there is something else going on? I dont want to be rude or something, i am just wondering. Enlighten me!
#2
Quote by ridicilus
Well...

I am an classical schooled piano player, and have been playing for 12 years and now i'm getting into guitar. So i guess i got my theory down. Now from reading on this forum i have one question... whats the problem with people learning scales?:

nothing. Anyone that says otherwise is being pretentious. And there is ALOT of that here.


Quote by ridicilus

Or maybe piano differs here from guitar but to me it seems if you know the major scale in every single position of the neck and you know the formula to create any other scale, it's all you need.


Well, you'd need to be familiar enough with those patterns/formulas to utilize them on the spot.... that takes more than just the knowledge.... it takes practice.


Quote by ridicilus


And the very same goes for chords, if you know the notes on your fretboard and the way a chord is created, whats the point of learning a book filled with chords?


same idea, though a book filled with chords isn't always the best way to learn those chords. some books are better than others.
Quote by ridicilus

Why learn scales for dorian patterns, learn scale for melodic minors, harmonic minors etc? Again, maybe this is different to piano playing where i would just use the formula over my major scale and play the desired scale... or there is something else going on? I dont want to be rude or something, i am just wondering. Enlighten me!


Why learn anything?

it's great that you understand some theory, but knowing how to construct a 13th chord, and playing it in context, and making it sound good is another. One takes study the other takes practice.. I don't recommend avoiding either of those activities.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Dec 14, 2011,
#3
It's just another way of learning. I guess it depends on the individual. Some people don't like sitting down and working stuff out, they just want to get on with it. And others would prefer to work it out for themselves.
Quote by Cathbard
You don't need epic tone in the bedroom any more than you need mood lighting to masturbate.


#4
Quote by GuitarMunky
nothing. Anyone that says otherwise is being pretentious. And there is ALOT of that here.


Well, you'd need to be familiar enough with those patterns/formulas to utilize them on the spot.... that takes more than just the knowledge.... it takes practice.


same idea, though a book filled with chords isn't always the best way to learn those chords. some books are better than others.


Why learn anything?

it's great that you understand some theory, but knowing how to construct a 13th chord, and playing it in context, and making it sound good is another.


Of course it takes practice, doesnt anything? And well, music is more about feel anyway.. But my point is, i know my major scales, i can freely change them to any other scale without thinking. What's the point to learn the scales i can find on the internet? I dont think they are different since well,, a scale is scale. So why would you learn 10.000 scales while basically 5 scales are sufficient.
#5
When playing guitar, as with any other instrument, how you learn and what you learn, is completely up to you. Some people prefer to just grab a chord book and learn the chords in it, as it saves some time on sitting down and working them out. Others prefer to learn all the notes on a guitar first, and work the chords out for themselves. Its pretty well just what works best for you. Learning scales in every position is definantly a help for soloing though
Oasis nut
Gear: Epiphone Les Paul, Epiphone Ej-200, Peavey Studio Pro 40, Digitech RP55, Boss ME-20. Too many pedals to list.
Latest additions: epiphone ej-200, boss me-20

Quote by DAiMIteHan

Am I old enough to wear this fist in school?
#6
Quote by ridicilus
Of course it takes practice, doesnt anything? But my point is, i know my major scales, i can freely change them to any other scale without thinking. What's the point to learn the scales i can find on the internet? I dont think they are different since well,, a scale is scale. So why would you learn 10.000 scales while basically 5 scales are sufficient.


If you can change the Major scale to any other scale "without thinking" then you already know those other scales. I don't see why you would try to learn something you already know.

and yeah, learning 10,000 scales would be stupid. Learn stuff you're going to use... and then use it. If you can play the Major and minor scales, and the associated pentatonic and blues scales, You're in pretty good shape. Not sure what you're worried about.
shred is gaudy music
#7
Quote by Josh01993
When playing guitar, as with any other instrument, how you learn and what you learn, is completely up to you. Some people prefer to just grab a chord book and learn the chords in it, as it saves some time on sitting down and working them out. Others prefer to learn all the notes on a guitar first, and work the chords out for themselves. Its pretty well just what works best for you. Learning scales in every position is definantly a help for soloing though


Ok but lets say you know how to voice a chord from the chord book you own, if you dont know why it is voiced that way, and how it fits in the scale what is the point of even knowing it? I know there is guitar TAB and stuff, i dont understand hell of it but well i've seen people playing like crazy over it so i guess it works for them lol. But still, it seems to be a lot of guitarists know "licks" but dont really know what they play and why it sounds good over the progression at hand??
#8
Quote by ridicilus
Ok but lets say you know how to voice a chord from the chord book you own, if you dont know why it is voiced that way, and how it fits in the scale what is the point of even knowing it?

cause it sounds cool and you can make music with it. If you listen to what you're doing, you can make personal choices. This is true regardless of how much theory you know.


Quote by ridicilus

I know there is guitar TAB and stuff, i dont understand hell of it but well i've seen people playing like crazy over it so i guess it works for them lol. But still, it seems to be a lot of guitarists know "licks" but dont really know what they play and why it sounds good over the progression at hand??


so whats you're point?
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Dec 14, 2011,
#9
Quote by GuitarMunky
If you can change the Major scale to any other scale "without thinking" then you already know those other scales. I don't see why you would try to learn something you already know.

and yeah, learning 10,000 scales would be stupid. Learn stuff you're going to use... and then use it. If you can play the Major and minor scales, and the associated pentatonic and blues scales, You're in pretty good shape. Not sure what you're worried about.

What i worried about is the fact that when i do an online search i see a lot of scale-fingerings and string choices that i dont use, so i figured there must be a reason for it
#10
Quote by ridicilus
What i worried about is the fact that when i do an online search i see a lot of scale-fingerings and string choices that i dont use, so i figured there must be a reason for it


yup, trust your instincts. You know anyone can post a lesson or advice on the internet... or make a webpage.
shred is gaudy music
#11
Quote by GuitarMunky
yup, trust your instincts. You know anyone can post a lesson or advice on the internet... or make a webpage.

That is very true. So i take it there's no reason other than personal taste to finger the stuff the way i see on the web. I thought there would be a logical explanation to it or something lol
#12
Quote by ridicilus
That is very true. So i take it there's no reason other than personal taste to finger the stuff the way i see on the web. I thought there would be a logical explanation to it or something lol


oh theres lots of reasons, personal taste is one. and actually it mostly dictates any other ones. For instance doing an arp with the root and 3rd on the same string allows you to do a hammer on and pull off between the 2 notes, whereas if you played the 3rd on an adjacent string, that wouldn't be possible. Personal choice may dictate that a particular melody be articulated with a slur between the root and 3rd...... well one of those patterns allows for that, the other doesn't.

and then you might find that the arp shape you chose falls nicely in one scale shape, but not another.

so there are real reasons aside from joe Shmoe that can barely play but has the resources to put out a book, or a website, and it can be hard to tell the difference.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Dec 14, 2011,
#13
Thanks! That really helped me So i guess it would be wise to come up with fingerings which would suite my style of playing, or just create fingerings on the fly but the again, you dont need those scales anymore. But i kinda did get the idea!
#14
Well, some people (myself included) enjoy learning about other scales because it's interesting; not just the scales themselves, but the harmonic contexts they're played in and the ideas that can come from them.

If you want the cynical, more general view of what people do on here:

> Many guitarists see guitar in general as a massive dick-waving contest
> Online, it's easier to try and sound intelligent
> Intelligent = e-peen
> E-peen = self-esteem
> "I can name a bunch of scales, I'll seem smart"
> Name a bunch of scales for no reason
> "I'm pretty smart"
> Feel good, hold this knowledge over other people to feel superior
#15
Quote by :-D

If you want the cynical, more general view of what people do on here:

> Many guitarists see guitar in general as a massive dick-waving contest
> Online, it's easier to try and sound intelligent
> Intelligent = e-peen
> E-peen = self-esteem
> "I can name a bunch of scales, I'll seem smart"
> Name a bunch of scales for no reason
> "I'm pretty smart"
> Feel good, hold this knowledge over other people to feel superior


^

knowing the major and minor scales and how to utilize accidentals and tension/resolution will cover all your bases and then some.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#16
Many guitarists haven't memorised the notes of the fretboard, many haven't learned the theory behind constructing even the major scale, and an alarming number of guitarists I see on this site only see scales as mysterious shapes and patterns on a fretboard diagram rather than a repeating sequence of notes.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#17
Never learnt scales (I say that, but I did when I learnt classical guitar, but I don't remember any of them) and I solo just fine. Just learn your keys/circle of fifths and where each note is on the finger board (or just in general really) and you're set.

I'm a classically training composer so using scales in that sense help me, but I prefer to construct my own in helping me write or use my knowledge keys rather than scales themselves.
Last edited by Tanglewoodguit at Dec 14, 2011,
#19
Quote by ridicilus
Well...

I am an classical schooled piano player, and have been playing for 12 years and now i'm getting into guitar. So i guess i got my theory down. Now from reading on this forum i have one question... whats the problem with people learning scales? Or maybe piano differs here from guitar but to me it seems if you know the major scale in every single position of the neck and you know the formula to create any other scale, it's all you need. And the very same goes for chords, if you know the notes on your fretboard and the way a chord is created, whats the point of learning a book filled with chords?

Why learn scales for dorian patterns, learn scale for melodic minors, harmonic minors etc? Again, maybe this is different to piano playing where i would just use the formula over my major scale and play the desired scale... or there is something else going on? I dont want to be rude or something, i am just wondering. Enlighten me!

See signature of post 2. https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1502857&page=1&pp=40
#21
In math, when we're given 2 coordinates, we can find an equation that will satisfy the slope or curve between the 2 points. That is essentially what scales and modes represent in music; a modelling expression that satisfies the conditions of a specific moment. The problem is that this theoretical basis almost never exists in reality.

We rarely see just 2 coordinates. We see pictures, comprised of unlimited amount of coordinates. Now, a computer could mathematically render or recreate the picture through instant calculations of millions of equations. Can you do that? Or is it just easier to pick up a brush, take in the canvas, and paint by looking at everything in context?

Music is not an E minor chord. It is not a Bb major key. It is a dynamic movement of sound and pitches. Just as a picture contains millions of mathematical expressions to render, any piece of music contains the models of many scales and modes. Are you a computer that can recall all of these models in real time in playing? And if not in real time, is it really efficient for us humans to render through these mathematical expressions when writing?

Music is a daunting permutation of possibilities. There are 24 keys, each which have many chromatic harmonies, each which have at least 2 or more scales or modes to model those harmonies. Those who do you the great injustice of telling you which model fits ONE of these claim that I'm pretentious because they don't want to face the fact that their teaching method, albeit conventional wisdom, is absolute shit. They don't want to face the fact that telling you the physical guitar shape of the pentatonic scale or the lydian mode is only good for a split second when music moves in real time, and that you must face the impossible task of rendering which model will work in the next split second and which shape it's in. They don't want to face the fact that most of the greatest improvisors in history, as well as the greatest composers, do not think about music in scalar terms. They don't want to face the fact that they are banking on a method that desperately tries to capture what music was doing, after the facts and on terms the music never even needed to think about. They don't want to face the fact that this approach only leads to mediocrity at best.

So call me pretentious. I don't care. I can breathe easy knowing that I'm not jailing people into rules and algorithms that are a complete joke in the organism of music. You have no one to blame but yourself when, a week or month later, a thread comes up asking "which mode should I use to sound like I'm taking a shit?" So TS, my answer to your question is simple. See sig.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#22
Quote by 20Tigers
+1

Merely shedding some light on AeolianWolf's post. I personally luv all that shit, scales and that I mean.
Quote by Xiaoxi
In math, when we're given 2 coordinates, we can find an equation that will satisfy the slope or curve between the 2 points. That is essentially what scales and modes represent in music; a modelling expression that satisfies the conditions of a specific moment. The problem is that this theoretical basis almost never exists in reality.

We rarely see just 2 coordinates. We see pictures, comprised of unlimited amount of coordinates. Now, a computer could mathematically render or recreate the picture through instant calculations of millions of equations. Can you do that? Or is it just easier to pick up a brush, take in the canvas, and paint by looking at everything in context?

Music is not an E minor chord. It is not a Bb major key. It is a dynamic movement of sound and pitches. Just as a picture contains millions of mathematical expressions to render, any piece of music contains the models of many scales and modes. Are you a computer that can recall all of these models in real time in playing? And if not in real time, is it really efficient for us humans to render through these mathematical expressions when writing?

Music is a daunting permutation of possibilities. There are 24 keys, each which have many chromatic harmonies, each which have at least 2 or more scales or modes to model those harmonies. Those who do you the great injustice of telling you which model fits ONE of these claim that I'm pretentious because they don't want to face the fact that their teaching method, albeit conventional wisdom, is absolute shit. They don't want to face the fact that telling you the physical guitar shape of the pentatonic scale or the lydian mode is only good for a split second when music moves in real time, and that you must face the impossible task of rendering which model will work in the next split second and which shape it's in. They don't want to face the fact that most of the greatest improvisors in history, as well as the greatest composers, do not think about music in scalar terms. They don't want to face the fact that they are banking on a method that desperately tries to capture what music was doing, after the facts and on terms the music never even needed to think about. They don't want to face the fact that this approach only leads to mediocrity at best.

So call me pretentious. I don't care. I can breathe easy knowing that I'm not jailing people into rules and algorithms that are a complete joke in the organism of music. You have no one to blame but yourself when, a week or month later, a thread comes up asking "which mode should I use to sound like I'm taking a shit?" So TS, my answer to your question is simple. See sig.

If only there wasn't a character limit for sigs.... and I love how you didn't even have edit that monumental showcase of wisdom. Wasn't a cut 'n' paste job was it?
#23
Quote by Xiaoxi
In math, when we're given 2 coordinates, we can find an equation that will satisfy the slope or curve between the 2 points. That is essentially what scales and modes represent in music; a modelling expression that satisfies the conditions of a specific moment. The problem is that this theoretical basis almost never exists in reality.

We rarely see just 2 coordinates. We see pictures, comprised of unlimited amount of coordinates. Now, a computer could mathematically render or recreate the picture through instant calculations of millions of equations. Can you do that? Or is it just easier to pick up a brush, take in the canvas, and paint by looking at everything in context?

Music is not an E minor chord. It is not a Bb major key. It is a dynamic movement of sound and pitches. Just as a picture contains millions of mathematical expressions to render, any piece of music contains the models of many scales and modes. Are you a computer that can recall all of these models in real time in playing? And if not in real time, is it really efficient for us humans to render through these mathematical expressions when writing?

Music is a daunting permutation of possibilities. There are 24 keys, each which have many chromatic harmonies, each which have at least 2 or more scales or modes to model those harmonies. Those who do you the great injustice of telling you which model fits ONE of these claim that I'm pretentious because they don't want to face the fact that their teaching method, albeit conventional wisdom, is absolute shit. They don't want to face the fact that telling you the physical guitar shape of the pentatonic scale or the lydian mode is only good for a split second when music moves in real time, and that you must face the impossible task of rendering which model will work in the next split second and which shape it's in. They don't want to face the fact that most of the greatest improvisors in history, as well as the greatest composers, do not think about music in scalar terms. They don't want to face the fact that they are banking on a method that desperately tries to capture what music was doing, after the facts and on terms the music never even needed to think about. They don't want to face the fact that this approach only leads to mediocrity at best.

So call me pretentious. I don't care. I can breathe easy knowing that I'm not jailing people into rules and algorithms that are a complete joke in the organism of music. You have no one to blame but yourself when, a week or month later, a thread comes up asking "which mode should I use to sound like I'm taking a shit?" So TS, my answer to your question is simple. See sig.



Totally agree in terms of musical analysis, but I'd still maintain that it's useful to practise different scale shapes in lots of different fingerings. It's a good way to learn your fretboard/keyboard/fingerboard, and they are useful in improvisation. I never think in terms of specific scales or modes when I'm improvising or writing, but that's not to say I don't use them or practise them.
#24
see? told you to ask xiaoxi.

Quote by Xiaoxi
In math, when we're given 2 coordinates, we can find an equation that will satisfy the slope or curve between the 2 points. That is essentially what scales and modes represent in music; a modelling expression that satisfies the conditions of a specific moment. The problem is that this theoretical basis almost never exists in reality.

We rarely see just 2 coordinates. We see pictures, comprised of unlimited amount of coordinates. Now, a computer could mathematically render or recreate the picture through instant calculations of millions of equations. Can you do that? Or is it just easier to pick up a brush, take in the canvas, and paint by looking at everything in context?

Music is not an E minor chord. It is not a Bb major key. It is a dynamic movement of sound and pitches. Just as a picture contains millions of mathematical expressions to render, any piece of music contains the models of many scales and modes. Are you a computer that can recall all of these models in real time in playing? And if not in real time, is it really efficient for us humans to render through these mathematical expressions when writing?

Music is a daunting permutation of possibilities. There are 24 keys, each which have many chromatic harmonies, each which have at least 2 or more scales or modes to model those harmonies. Those who do you the great injustice of telling you which model fits ONE of these claim that I'm pretentious because they don't want to face the fact that their teaching method, albeit conventional wisdom, is absolute shit. They don't want to face the fact that telling you the physical guitar shape of the pentatonic scale or the lydian mode is only good for a split second when music moves in real time, and that you must face the impossible task of rendering which model will work in the next split second and which shape it's in. They don't want to face the fact that most of the greatest improvisors in history, as well as the greatest composers, do not think about music in scalar terms. They don't want to face the fact that they are banking on a method that desperately tries to capture what music was doing, after the facts and on terms the music never even needed to think about. They don't want to face the fact that this approach only leads to mediocrity at best.

So call me pretentious. I don't care. I can breathe easy knowing that I'm not jailing people into rules and algorithms that are a complete joke in the organism of music. You have no one to blame but yourself when, a week or month later, a thread comes up asking "which mode should I use to sound like I'm taking a shit?" So TS, my answer to your question is simple. See sig.






you got the clap.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#25
Quote by Xiaoxi


So call me pretentious. I don't care.


well, I'm glad you don't care, or feel the need to write a huge rebuttal. That shows true self-confidence in your position.


Quote by mdc
I love how you didn't even have edit that monumental showcase of wisdom.


@ wisdom

it's a showcase, for sure.


Quote by Xiaoxi

Music is not an E minor chord. It is not a Bb major key. It is a dynamic movement of sound and pitches.


You could take the same stance with language, and say that it's not a letter, or a word, or grammar. But ofcourse that would be foolish because it overlooks the obvious fact that you wouldn't be able to express yourself with language had you not learned those very things.

Being pretentious can make you feel pretty smart, and you can definitely fool a certain crowd. Eventually though, the real world gets in the way.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Dec 15, 2011,
#26
Quote by mdc

If only there wasn't a character limit for sigs.... and I love how you didn't even have edit that monumental showcase of wisdom. Wasn't a cut 'n' paste job was it?

Nope, but I've been brooding about it over the last few days.

Quote by National_Anthem

Totally agree in terms of musical analysis, but I'd still maintain that it's useful to practise different scale shapes in lots of different fingerings. It's a good way to learn your fretboard/keyboard/fingerboard, and they are useful in improvisation. I never think in terms of specific scales or modes when I'm improvising or writing, but that's not to say I don't use them or practise them.

This is true. I concede that there is a place for scales in physical practice. But the overwhelming context in which scales/modes are discussed here, are their applications in actual music.

Quote by AeolianWolf

you got the clap.
And not the bad kind for a change...

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#27
Quote by GuitarMunky
well, I'm glad you don't care, or feel the need to write a huge rebuttal. That shows true self-confidence in your position.
What I said wasn't for you. It was for the OP. I will continue to be pretentious in the midst of people like you who are essentially prescribing aspirin for terminal cancer. That's where my not-giving-a-shit comes in.


You could take the same stance with language, and say that it's not a letter, or a word, or grammar. But ofcourse that would be foolish because it overlooks the obvious fact that you wouldn't be able to express yourself with language had you not learned those very things.
Scales are often referred to as the musical alphabet. If we take this metaphor, you are advocating for reciting the alphabet over and over again. Nobody would ever get to those finer points of literature with this abomination of an approach.

Being pretentious can make you feel pretty smart, and you can definitely fool a certain crowd. Eventually though, the real world gets in the way.
Then I guess I will stay in la-la land where Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Bartok, Dizzie Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Wes Montgomery, Bill Evans, Joe Pass, Thelonious Monk, and god knows how many others reside. You have fun in the drab "real world" of one constant chord.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#28
Quote by Xiaoxi
What I said wasn't for you. It was for the OP.


I didn't realize anyone else called you pretentious. Still that was a huge rebuttal for someone so confident in their position.

Quote by Xiaoxi

I will continue to be pretentious in the midst of people like you who are essentially prescribing aspirin for terminal cancer. That's where my not-giving-a-shit comes in.


Oh I see, it's my fault you're pretentious.


Quote by Xiaoxi

Scales are often referred to as the musical alphabet. If we take this metaphor, you are advocating for reciting the alphabet over and over again. Nobody would ever get to those finer points of literature with this abomination of an approach.


well, when people 1st learn the alphabet, that's exactly what they do..... A B C D E F G.....
then they learn how to put them together into words, and then sentences.


Quote by Xiaoxi

Then I guess I will stay in la-la land where Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Bartok, Dizzie Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Wes Montgomery, Bill Evans, Joe Pass, Thelonious Monk, and god knows how many others reside. You have fun in the drab "real world" of one constant chord.


It's not pretentious to like that music. it's pretentious to group yourself with those great musicians, and then look down on the rest of society because of your imagined greatness.

It's also pretentious to say that anything outside of the music that you deem worthy is limited to one consistent chord. You have to even throw the word "drab" in there to convince us further. Anyone thats had their head out of their ass long enough to pay attention to the real world knows there is alot more than that.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Dec 15, 2011,
#30
Quote by GuitarMunky
I didn't realize anyone else called you pretentious. Still that was a huge rebuttal for someone so confident in their position.
Newsflash: not everything is revolved around you.

well, when people 1st learn the alphabet, that's exactly what they do..... A B C D E F G.....
then they learn how to put them together into words, and then sentences.
The alphabet is quickly introduced and then we move on to more important things. We don't analyze novels by looking at the letters that make up each word.

It's not pretentious to like that music. it's pretentious to group yourself with those great musicians, and then look down on the rest of society because of your imagined greatness.
I'm not grouping myself with them. I'm saying that these people are testaments to my beliefs.

It's also pretentious to say that anything outside of the music that you deem worthy is limited to one consistent chord. You have to even throw the word "drab" in there to convince us further. Anyone thats had their head out of their ass long enough to pay attention to the real world knows there is alot more than that.

It's ironic that you keep emphasizing the real world, when the entire basis of your scalar/modal theory relies on purely artificial conditions in music. I wasn't aware that using the word "drab" was pretentious. It just comes so naturally when I'm not wasting all of my time reciting the alphabet.

Anyways, I don't really need to waste any more time or effort to argue with you about this. You are arrogant. And I'm arrogant. You're not going to bend. But it's not about you. My posts are to the TS.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
Last edited by Xiaoxi at Dec 15, 2011,
#31
Quote by GuitarMunky
and then look down on the rest of society because of your imagined greatness.


but he is pretty great you gotta admit
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#32
Quote by Xiaoxi
Newsflash: not everything is revolved around you.

The alphabet is quickly introduced and then we move on to more important things. We don't analyze novels by looking at the letters that make up each word.


yeah, but you still have to learn the letters in the 1st place. You don't think they're important, yet they're part of every word you just wrote.


Quote by Xiaoxi

I'm not grouping myself with them. I'm saying that these people are testaments to my beliefs.


You think your beliefs align with theirs. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Quote by Xiaoxi

It's ironic that you keep emphasizing the real world, when the entire basis of your scalar/modal theory relies on purely artificial conditions in music.


MY scalar modal theory?


Quote by Xiaoxi


Anyways, I don't really need to waste any more time or effort to argue with you about this. You are arrogant. And I'm arrogant. You're not going to bend. But it's not about you. My posts are to the TS.


Your right, I'm not going to bend and start thinking that learning scales is "dumb & useless". and when you post in this forum, we all read it, and all have the right to respond. So cut out the "it's about you" crap.... thats so pathetic. If you don't want honest reactions to things you say, don't say them.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Dec 15, 2011,
#33
Quote by GuitarMunky
yeah, but you still have to learn the letters in the 1st place. You don't think their important, yet their part of every word you just wrote.

this metaphor stopped making sense

and you're annoying. quit trying to pick a fight with a perfectly legible point for no reason other than self-gratification.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#34
Quote by Hail
this metaphor stopped making sense

and you're annoying. quit trying to pick a fight with a perfectly legible point for no reason other than self-gratification.


actually it makes perfect sense. and quit jumping in conversions that you're not part of..... because THAT"S annoying.

if you have an opinion on the subject, like for instance if you think that learning scales is "dumb and useless", give me your reason why.
shred is gaudy music
#35
Quote by GuitarMunky
actually it makes perfect sense. and quit jumping in conversions that you're not part of..... because THAT"S annoying.

if you have an opinion on the subject, like for instance if you think that learning scales is "dumb and useless", give me your reason why.

In math, when we're given 2 coordinates, we can find an equation that will satisfy the slope or curve between the 2 points. That is essentially what scales and modes represent in music; a modelling expression that satisfies the conditions of a specific moment. The problem is that this theoretical basis almost never exists in reality.

We rarely see just 2 coordinates. We see pictures, comprised of unlimited amount of coordinates. Now, a computer could mathematically render or recreate the picture through instant calculations of millions of equations. Can you do that? Or is it just easier to pick up a brush, take in the canvas, and paint by looking at everything in context?

Music is not an E minor chord. It is not a Bb major key. It is a dynamic movement of sound and pitches. Just as a picture contains millions of mathematical expressions to render, any piece of music contains the models of many scales and modes. Are you a computer that can recall all of these models in real time in playing? And if not in real time, is it really efficient for us humans to render through these mathematical expressions when writing?

Music is a daunting permutation of possibilities. There are 24 keys, each which have many chromatic harmonies, each which have at least 2 or more scales or modes to model those harmonies. Those who do you the great injustice of telling you which model fits ONE of these claim that I'm pretentious because they don't want to face the fact that their teaching method, albeit conventional wisdom, is absolute shit. They don't want to face the fact that telling you the physical guitar shape of the pentatonic scale or the lydian mode is only good for a split second when music moves in real time, and that you must face the impossible task of rendering which model will work in the next split second and which shape it's in. They don't want to face the fact that most of the greatest improvisors in history, as well as the greatest composers, do not think about music in scalar terms. They don't want to face the fact that they are banking on a method that desperately tries to capture what music was doing, after the facts and on terms the music never even needed to think about. They don't want to face the fact that this approach only leads to mediocrity at best.

So call me pretentious. I don't care. I can breathe easy knowing that I'm not jailing people into rules and algorithms that are a complete joke in the organism of music. You have no one to blame but yourself when, a week or month later, a thread comes up asking "which mode should I use to sound like I'm taking a shit?" So TS, my answer to your question is simple. See sig.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#36
Quote by Hail
So TS, my answer to your question is simple. See sig.

Your answer is that TS should buy a fleshlight?


Sound advice...

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#37
Quote by Xiaoxi
Your answer is that TS should buy a fleshlight?


Sound advice...




but really i'm not going to try and be more eloquent than xiaoxi about this. his rants are typically very hard to top and this is no exception
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#38
Quote by Hail
In math, when we're given 2 coordinates, we can find an equation that will satisfy the slope or curve between the 2 points. That is essentially what scales and modes represent in music; a modelling expression that satisfies the conditions of a specific moment. The problem is that this theoretical basis almost never exists in reality.

We rarely see just 2 coordinates. We see pictures, comprised of unlimited amount of coordinates. Now, a computer could mathematically render or recreate the picture through instant calculations of millions of equations. Can you do that? Or is it just easier to pick up a brush, take in the canvas, and paint by looking at everything in context?

Music is not an E minor chord. It is not a Bb major key. It is a dynamic movement of sound and pitches. Just as a picture contains millions of mathematical expressions to render, any piece of music contains the models of many scales and modes. Are you a computer that can recall all of these models in real time in playing? And if not in real time, is it really efficient for us humans to render through these mathematical expressions when writing?

Music is a daunting permutation of possibilities. There are 24 keys, each which have many chromatic harmonies, each which have at least 2 or more scales or modes to model those harmonies. Those who do you the great injustice of telling you which model fits ONE of these claim that I'm pretentious because they don't want to face the fact that their teaching method, albeit conventional wisdom, is absolute shit. They don't want to face the fact that telling you the physical guitar shape of the pentatonic scale or the lydian mode is only good for a split second when music moves in real time, and that you must face the impossible task of rendering which model will work in the next split second and which shape it's in. They don't want to face the fact that most of the greatest improvisors in history, as well as the greatest composers, do not think about music in scalar terms. They don't want to face the fact that they are banking on a method that desperately tries to capture what music was doing, after the facts and on terms the music never even needed to think about. They don't want to face the fact that this approach only leads to mediocrity at best.

So call me pretentious. I don't care. I can breathe easy knowing that I'm not jailing people into rules and algorithms that are a complete joke in the organism of music. You have no one to blame but yourself when, a week or month later, a thread comes up asking "which mode should I use to sound like I'm taking a shit?" So TS, my answer to your question is simple. See sig.


Even though I think that post is complete garbage, I can't argue it with you because they're not your words.

Do you honestly think that learning a scale is dumb and useless? If so, then please explain why in your own words.
shred is gaudy music
#40
Quote by GuitarMunky
Even though I think that post is complete garbage, I can't argue it with you because they're not your words.

Do you honestly think that learning a scale is dumb and useless? If so, then please explain why in your own words.


knowing how to use a major and minor scale is obviously useful because most contemporary music is based on them, but from there it's almost entirely learning to use accidentals and if you know what you're doing and develop an ear you don't need to rely on scales.

if you're trying to "master" your instruments, all the modes and hungarian scales in the world won't do jack shit.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
Page 1 of 3