Page 2 of 3
#42
I take everything I do serious. When I played the trumpet I had to learn all of the scales and arpeggios, slurs, intervals, etc. Without that foundation I would not have been able to play the trumpet as well as I did (eight years), nor would I have been able to consider a career in music (got sidetracked and went another direction, getting back into music some 30 years later).

While picking up a guitar today I perused the various educational resources available and found a series of books for guitar entitled 'The Guitar Grimoire.' There are about five or six rather voluminous books in this series on a variety of subjects. The book in this series that was handed to me by one of the clerks I was talking to at the time on the subject of guitar education and learning was 'The Guitar Grimoire: Scales & Modes.' It's 211 pages, 12" tall by 9" wide, and while the text (where there is text) is about 12 point type, the various fretboard diagrams are small. I knew it was the book for me when I saw the Circle of Fifths on its cover.

There isn't a scale or mode in the world that isn't covered in this book. This is where I start my guitar education. The first 20 pages are general explanation and the next 191 are nothing but scales and modes in every variety known to mankind. Major, minor, Hungarian, Persian, you name it, it's in there.

This specific resource is exactly what I've been looking for insofar as learning the guitar, the fingerboard (we call the violin fingerboard, is the guitar a fingerboard or fretboard or does it matter?), music theory, etc. As I learn scales, modes, and theory on the guitar, I will also be building upon the physical hands on technique (that is to say, 'my chops') as I'll be playing these scales and learning the notes and their location on the fretboard, their relationship to each other, each scale's relationship to each other, chord progressions, and more repeatedly for years. How can one not develop chops doing that?

Without that foundation one is merely a player and not a musician. I'm seeking the total package that will allow me to play with anyone, anywhere. One can't do that without a solid basis in music theory which begins with scales, arpeggios, etc. This will carry over to all instruments as well as writing and arranging assuming that you wanted to branch out beyond just playing the guitar.

The Guitar Grimoire: A Compendium of Formulas for Guitar Scales and Modes $20.84
Last edited by ConcertShooter at Nov 28, 2012,
#43
I've actually found that scales improve my picking and finger dexterity aside from what has already been mentioned here. I know they're relied upon more from a theory standpoint-as they should be...but they can/will improve one's technique as well.
#44
Quote by J_W
Wait, so unless you know theory you can't be a musician?


You can be a player, even a great guitar player without a solid foundation in music theory, but you will not be a musician by any means. You could very well save someone's life if you know basic first aid and CPR, but knowing basic first aid and using CPR to save someone's life won't make you a doctor.

A musician is the total package. A player is a technician. Two wholly separate animals.
#45
Quote by Simper-Yut
I've actually found that scales improve my picking and finger dexterity aside from what has already been mentioned here. I know they're relied upon more from a theory standpoint-as they should be...but they can/will improve one's technique as well.


The Guitar Grimoire: Picking Exercises


(No, I receive no kick backs from the author or publisher of these books. Just know an excellent resource when I see one. I'm sure there are others that I will also pick up along my musical journey and if there are some that I should know about please inform me. Thanks!)
Last edited by ConcertShooter at Nov 28, 2012,
#46
concert shooter thanks a lot, i'll definitely have a look at that!

that's a musician: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/musician

there's no need to redefine the word just to describe what a good musician is to you.

a good musician to me is some dude who writes good music. like the ramones, or paul gilbert. i wouldn't care less about their theoretical background.
#47
One friggin question:
Who the hell was the genius that stated learning theory = scales?

Once one is done with understanding and hearing the difference between a minor and a major key, there are thousand of more productive things one could be doing than learning scales with all kind of stupid names to them.

Scales are sometimes good to practice fingerings and to train your ear, but if you already have good technique, you are wasting your time.

Just to reiterate: memorizing scale patterns has little to do with music theory.
And the G-Grimoire is just a compilation of wanking patterns that any decent musician would be able to name and understand without ever having taken a look at that book.
Quote by Hail
i'm the internet equivalent of ripping the skin off my face and strangling you with it right now


Quote by Steve Albini
Remixing is for talentless pussies who don't know how to tune a drum or point a microphone.
Last edited by Slashiepie at Nov 29, 2012,
#48
Quote by Slashiepie
One friggin question:
Who the hell was the genius that stated learning theory = scales?


Scales are but one part of music theory. The most basic part.

Quote by Slashiepie
And the G-Grimoire is just a compilation of wanking patterns that any decent musician would be able to name and understand without ever having taken a look at that book.


I don't play guitar and don't know the finger board. I need a book at this point as I can't afford violin and guitar lessons.

What's the general age on these forums when most posters outgrow the name calling and childish ad hominem attacks?
#49
Quote by ConcertShooter
I take everything I do serious. When I played the trumpet I had to learn all of the scales and arpeggios, slurs, intervals, etc. Without that foundation I would not have been able to play the trumpet as well as I did (eight years), nor would I have been able to consider a career in music (got sidetracked and went another direction, getting back into music some 30 years later).

While picking up a guitar today I perused the various educational resources available and found a series of books for guitar entitled 'The Guitar Grimoire.' There are about five or six rather voluminous books in this series on a variety of subjects. The book in this series that was handed to me by one of the clerks I was talking to at the time on the subject of guitar education and learning was 'The Guitar Grimoire: Scales & Modes.' It's 211 pages, 12" tall by 9" wide, and while the text (where there is text) is about 12 point type, the various fretboard diagrams are small. I knew it was the book for me when I saw the Circle of Fifths on its cover.

There isn't a scale or mode in the world that isn't covered in this book. This is where I start my guitar education. The first 20 pages are general explanation and the next 191 are nothing but scales and modes in every variety known to mankind. Major, minor, Hungarian, Persian, you name it, it's in there.

This specific resource is exactly what I've been looking for insofar as learning the guitar, the fingerboard (we call the violin fingerboard, is the guitar a fingerboard or fretboard or does it matter?), music theory, etc. As I learn scales, modes, and theory on the guitar, I will also be building upon the physical hands on technique (that is to say, 'my chops') as I'll be playing these scales and learning the notes and their location on the fretboard, their relationship to each other, each scale's relationship to each other, chord progressions, and more repeatedly for years. How can one not develop chops doing that?

Without that foundation one is merely a player and not a musician. I'm seeking the total package that will allow me to play with anyone, anywhere. One can't do that without a solid basis in music theory which begins with scales, arpeggios, etc. This will carry over to all instruments as well as writing and arranging assuming that you wanted to branch out beyond just playing the guitar.

The Guitar Grimoire: A Compendium of Formulas for Guitar Scales and Modes $20.84

Sadly that is one of the most awful books in the history of guitar education.

probably better off in MT too
Actually called Mark!

Quote by TNfootballfan62
People with a duck for their avatar always give good advice.

...it's a seagull

Quote by Dave_Mc
i wanna see a clip of a recto buying some groceries.


stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com
#50
My band director was a musician, a professional. He played saxophones for some of the biggest names in music in the 1960s when they toured. And could he play the sax. He also knew exactly what part we in the trumpet section were to play as well as the bassoon section.

If ever there was a conflict or some dissonance between a particular section of our band he knew it because he (and we) could hear it, and he knew how to correct it because he knew music theory. All theory, not just scales.

Music theory, along with his sax chops, gave him the foundation to lead a band and not just our high school band, but professional backing bands for B.B. King, Aretha Franklin and the like in the 1960s. He was a musician, a professional, which separates his type from the players who are mere technicians.

No one is forcing anyone to learn scales, arpeggios, chord progressions, music arrangement, or music theory. Everyone is free to revel in their ignorance if they so desire. That's what makes America great, or not so great depending on your disposition.
Last edited by ConcertShooter at Nov 29, 2012,
#51
My God Steven, what have you done? This thread was already a shit storm, and then you throw it into the den of shit storms. No good will come of this, you mark my words!
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
#52
Quote by steven seagull
Sadly that is one of the most awful books in the history of guitar education.

probably better off in MT too


Is there a better resource? I asked in my original post in this thread that if there were other books that people please advise me of them. I can take this one back if there is a better resource on scales, modes, etc. Please provide me with other resources that will assist me in coming up to speed on music theory as it relates to the guitar finger board. Thanks in advance.

In passing, it's just a reference. A tool. It's not an all to end all type of book. So if there is a better place to start aside from Mel Bay Guitar Book 1 let me know.
Last edited by ConcertShooter at Nov 29, 2012,
#53
^If that book is anything at all like the Hal Leonard scale book then yea it's pretty much a waste. Over a 100 pages of diagrams showing the same freakin pattern marketed to suckers who don't know any better, I know because I was one too when I started learning theory.

Only good parts of that book were where it told you how to build the major scale and the chart naming the notes on the fretboard, conviently located at the front and back of the book respectively.

To the OP, The more I learn about theory, and play guitar the more I find myself wondering the same thing, except in my case it's more of a, "Why did I spend so much time drilling this stuff into my head?" The easiest way I have found to comprehend this stuff is to learn the major scale and consider everything else as an alteration to it(You know, the way scale spellings work.) No modes, no weird names, just major & minor based off of the keys. If you come across a non-diatonic chord or accidental note then you just alter what you play to account for it, no reason to add silly ancient names to it.

Like the regs here in MT always preach, just because a note isn't "in key" doesn't mean that it can't be played, those are just the notes used in the diatonic harmony, which isn't always used in a song. Remember, you're playing music, not scales. Don't be afraid to step outside of the box, just let your ears decide when you've gone to far and need to come back in.
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
Last edited by J-Dawg158 at Nov 29, 2012,
#54
Quote by J-Dawg158
^If that book is anything at all like the Hal Leonard scale book then yea it's pretty much a waste. Over a 100 pages of diagrams showing the same freakin pattern marketed to suckers who don't know any better, I know because I was one too when I started learning theory.


This isn't a Hal Leonard type of book. Strange how you haven't examined the book in question but feel qualified to comment on it. The epitome of ignorance personified.

Quote by J-Dawg158
Only good parts of that book were where it told you how to build the major scale and the chart naming the notes on the fretboard, conviently [sic] located at the front and back of the book respectively.


I already know scales and theory, and the intervals that constitute a major scale and others. The nature of the guitar finger board is such that there will be patterns that repeat, but this isn't merely a 'pattern' book as such.

Maybe you should go look at it before commenting? Seriously, who disparages anything they haven't first laid their eyes upon and examined?

In passing, 'conviently' is spelled conveniently. If you use the Firefox browser you don't even have to know how to spell to write like you're intelligent. Firefox underlines misspelled words for you and gives you the option of several choices with which to replace the erroneous term. I find that laziness in one area of life tends to indicate laziness in most other areas of life. Your mileage may vary.
Last edited by ConcertShooter at Nov 29, 2012,
#56
My comment was directed towards the Hal Leonard book I purchased as a rookie guitar player, not the book in question, prefaced by the conditional statement that "IF" it is similar then it is likely of equal unusefulness to anyone with a good understanding of the fundamentals of theory. I drew the conclusion that they may in fact be similar based upon this statement.

Quote by ConcertShooter
The first 20 pages are general explanation and the next 191 are nothing but scales and modes in every variety known to mankind. Major, minor, Hungarian, Persian, you name it, it's in there.


Sounds like every scale book I've ever looked through in my life. You don't have to have examined every breed of dog on the face of the earth to recognize that a dog is a dog. In my experience, books like this are a scheme no more better than those, "Are you making these 3 major guitar mistakes?" ads all over the net, intended to prey on the gullible and inexperienced to feed them shapes and patterns that they would be better served working out for themselves. It doesn't take a whole lot of information to remember how to construct a scale, certainly not enough to fill a 200+ page book.

Since you feel strongly enough about the book's integrity enough to call me out on it then I will give it the benefit of the doubt and check it out to see if it contains any knowledge superior to that of every other scale reference book I've read.

This is a free forum filled with people giving their own advice freely. Mine is drawn from my own study and experience. If people don't like it then they don't have to take it. In this case, my experience is scale and chord books are "giving a man a fish when he should be learning how to fish." If people want to use them for reference then that's their prerogative, but my problem is when they use them as a crutch to lift up their own misguided understanding, which is more often than not the case. If you think I'm just bitter about the subject then by all means dismiss my rant altogether, makes no difference to me.
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
#57
My philosophy is that there doesn't exist a single "element" in music that can't be beneficial to the individual musician/instrumentalist. While certain areas may require more of our attention than others on our separate journeys; it is awfully ignorant and stubborn to insist that any one particular exercise or "tool" is of no value. The book that Concert Shooter has referenced to my understanding does not advertise its self as the end all be all to understanding the various scales. At the same time, yes it is someones attempt to make a buck which could imply 'devious' tactics...but that is the nature of business. It is a tool and nothing more. It is still up to the individual guitarist to pick out the portions that prove valuable to them and throw out all the rest.

I can ascertain from ConcertShooters posts that he might be a fairly accomplished musician, and he speaks as someone who has been around the block and knows a thing or two. Does that mean every advice he gives is to be taken as absolutely correct? Obviously not. However, I put more stock in the advice of someone that seems sincere in their approach and who have a proven history of success within their field.

Yes, a person can work out scales on their own...and I strongly advise this to any guitarist. That is part of the learning process of a musician. At the same time, it is incredibly glib to think that any of these books that offer various approaches and excercises such as scales, arpeggios, string-skipping, sweeping, etc...etc.. have nothing to offer. It is an elitist mentality that insists there is nothing to be gained here. People that are humble and realistic are going to be the one's that find legitimate use in any and all avenues pertaining to their art.
#58
A developed ear lets you play what you hear in your head on the guitar. Music theory lets you understand and communicate what you're doing with other musicians. It also lets you better examine other music to get ideas and inspiration.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#59
Maybe a bit late to say this but Hendrix may not have known all the fancy names but he knew how different chords work with each other and what sounds good over whatever chords. If that's not knowing theory then what is? I mean, you learn theory even if you don't know all the fancy names that you really don't need. It's more important to be able to apply the knowledge than know all the terms but have no idea how they sound.

And about modes: They were used in pre-tonal music (pre-17th century), back when there were no keys. But today they are just used as scales and many people refer to scale shapes when they talk about modes (you are not playing modal music when you play these scale shapes, you are most likely playing in the major or minor that shares the same notes). Mode is a cuss word because people understand it wrong very easily. That's why people don't like to talk about modes in MT.

But scales can be helpful, at least if you listen to how different notes of the scale sound over different chords. But learning scales might turn your autopilot mode on and you'll end up not thinking and just playing the scale up and down without any real ideas. You can use the knowledge of scales well when you have a trained ear. And you can base your solo around a scale and use accidentals. But the main point of soloing is ear training and scales might help you on that. But as I said, many times people just ask "which scale should I play over this chord progression" and they don't even listen to what they play, they only play some scale notes. That might sound OK but if you don't know what you are doing, there's a possibility that the solo sounds very generic and boring.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#60
Quote by ConcertShooter
Scales are but one part of music theory. The most basic part.

I don't play guitar and don't know the finger board. I need a book at this point as I can't afford violin and guitar lessons.

What's the general age on these forums when most posters outgrow the name calling and childish ad hominem attacks?


G.T: Physical 15, Mental 8.
M.T: Physical 25, Mental 114.
Quote by Hail
i'm the internet equivalent of ripping the skin off my face and strangling you with it right now


Quote by Steve Albini
Remixing is for talentless pussies who don't know how to tune a drum or point a microphone.
#61
Quote by Akula KO
I will give it an honest try. I do realize that with many things you have to go through tedious things before the fun begins.



TS, "music theory" is not synonymous with "scales". Memorising scales is tedious. It's not the same as learning theory.

Theory is about learning the mechanics of music. I feel embarrassed for people who don't know any theory. I feel indignant toward people who say they don't need any theory whatsoever. This attitude inspires the same level of respect from me as an automaton or a coffee vending machine.

You need to know a BIT of theory. Just a bit. The foundations: what are harmony, melody, and rhythm; keys, intervals, chords. From this base you can research a subject more deeply if you ever need to.

Theory's not tedious. It can be very interesting, unless you're the kind of person who always negatively associates learning with authority and restrictions.
#62
Quote by Jehannum
TS, "music theory" is not synonymous with "scales". Memorising scales is tedious. It's not the same as learning theory.

Theory is about learning the mechanics of music. I feel embarrassed for people who don't know any theory. I feel indignant toward people who say they don't need any theory whatsoever. This attitude inspires the same level of respect from me as an automaton or a coffee vending machine.

You need to know a BIT of theory. Just a bit. The foundations: what are harmony, melody, and rhythm; keys, intervals, chords. From this base you can research a subject more deeply if you ever need to.

Theory's not tedious. It can be very interesting, unless you're the kind of person who always negatively associates learning with authority and restrictions.


Memorizing at least the major and minor scales is the first step of learning theory. Language like this that implies scales are useless and not party of music theory is not going to help beginners.
#63
I think the people who try to discount any kind of theory are the ones who are actually intimidated by it. Understandably so, as learning theory is like learning a new language. That is why it is best to just pick it up in bits and pieces along the way instead of thinking all of it needs to be crammed into our noggins at once. I know just a little bit of theory, but the little bit I do know and understand has proven very beneficial to me. I think theory is what separates the men from they boys not in the sense of skill, but in the sense of overall passion. Anyone who is passionate about music will want to learn and understand theory.

Scales are just one of many tools that are resourceful for any musician. This isn't to say that they should require the majority of our focus, but they are helpful in recognizing certain patterns and then identifying those same patterns in songs. I'm also a huge advocate of figuring them out by ear. Both/and, not either/or. Learning scales will create an almost instant reflex when you encounter the same scale within a song to where your fingers just know where to go. And yes, scale work does improve your technical proficiency as well...and this is true of anything done on the guitar. Scales are not the end all be all, and will not turn the beginner into a superstar by any means...but they are very useful for those who care to rely on them.
#64
Quote by Simper-Yut
I think the people who try to discount any kind of theory are the ones who are actually intimidated by it. Understandably so, as learning theory is like learning a new language. That is why it is best to just pick it up in bits and pieces along the way instead of thinking all of it needs to be crammed into our noggins at once. I know just a little bit of theory, but the little bit I do know and understand has proven very beneficial to me. I think theory is what separates the men from they boys not in the sense of skill, but in the sense of overall passion. Anyone who is passionate about music will want to learn and understand theory.

Scales are just one of many tools that are resourceful for any musician. This isn't to say that they should require the majority of our focus, but they are helpful in recognizing certain patterns and then identifying those same patterns in songs. I'm also a huge advocate of figuring them out by ear. Both/and, not either/or. Learning scales will create an almost instant reflex when you encounter the same scale within a song to where your fingers just know where to go. And yes, scale work does improve your technical proficiency as well...and this is true of anything done on the guitar. Scales are not the end all be all, and will not turn the beginner into a superstar by any means...but they are very useful for those who care to rely on them.
Yep, it's better to have a strong understanding of a little bit of theory than to have a weak/false understanding of a lot of theory.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
#65
There's two different schools.

1. The theory nerds that are pissed that someone can play well without an in-depth knowledge of theory. These are the people that have worked their balls off to understand how the Hungarian minor scale works over an Am chord progression. God bless 'em that they know these things.

2. The kids that just work the physical part of playing guitar and are able to rip up and down patterns without having any earthly idea of what the hell they're playing.

In my opinion here is what a working rock guitarist needs in term of theory:

1. Know what notes make up the minor pentatonic and harmonic minor in each key

2. Chord structure

If you know these two things then you know way more than enough to be a working guitarist.

Flame away, boys and girls.
#66
There's not "two different schools" at all, if anything what you've posted there is simply two extreme ways of approaching the situation that sit at opposite ends of the scale,
Actually called Mark!

Quote by TNfootballfan62
People with a duck for their avatar always give good advice.

...it's a seagull

Quote by Dave_Mc
i wanna see a clip of a recto buying some groceries.


stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com
#67
Quote by deepfat

1. The theory nerds that are pissed that someone can play well without an in-depth knowledge of theory. These are the people that have worked their balls off to understand how the Hungarian minor scale works over an Am chord progression. God bless 'em that they know these things.


Nobody is pissed off that people can play well without theory. People are pissed off that people think or say that theory won't help them. I couldn't give less of a shit if somebody knows theory or not. But pretending it wouldn't help them is a big irritation.
#68
theory isn't simply a studious understanding of the inner-workings of musical logic. having a deft ear, when paired with experience, solid instinct, and some common sense, will allow you to subconsciously break down music to a point where you personally understand it and can take what you need from it in order to enhance your playing as well as your general knowledge of music.

"learning theory" comes with experience, not with pounding textbooks. some people can tell you the function of a specific chord on a progression by simply looking at it, while some people can hear it in context and understand what it's doing. naturally you should attempt to understand all you can about your craft if you take it seriously, but there's nothing at all wrong with either leaning as long as you can take in a context and understand it in a musical sense.

preferably you can do both at equal ease, but everybody is different and music is far too ephemeral a skill to look at in raw academics and absolutes. do what works best for you, but understand that nothing can be hurt from learning and experiencing all you can. i listen to more music recreationally that doesn't have a bass or guitar playing than music that does, but it works for me and i enjoy it, and that's what matters.

people who approach extremes generally don't have theoretical knowledge academically or artistically, though, so that guy's probably either trolling or dumb
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.
#69
Quote by deepfat
There's two different schools.

1. The theory nerds that are pissed that someone can play well without an in-depth knowledge of theory. These are the people that have worked their balls off to understand how the Hungarian minor scale works over an Am chord progression. God bless 'em that they know these things.

2. The kids that just work the physical part of playing guitar and are able to rip up and down patterns without having any earthly idea of what the hell they're playing.


no, that's just one school. both of those examples are part of the train of thought that i like to describe as "useless". in either situation, the results are poor, because of the thought process (in the first) or idiocy/ignorance (in the latter).

Quote by deepfat
In my opinion here is what a working rock guitarist needs in term of theory:

1. Know what notes make up the minor pentatonic and harmonic minor in each key

2. Chord structure

If you know these two things then you know way more than enough to be a working guitarist.


a working rock guitarist, perhaps. rock guitar is among some of the easiest shit. doesn't make it bad, but playing rock isn't really indicative of someone's playing ability (unless it's all someone can play, which indicates not only an extremely closed mind, but fairly poor musicianship overall).

Quote by deepfat
Flame away, boys and girls.


why would we flame? you've posted truths.

you simply have an inaccurate understanding of what you're talking about.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#70
Quote by AeolianWolf
no, that's just one school. both of those examples are part of the train of thought that i like to describe as "useless". in either situation, the results are poor, because of the thought process (in the first) or idiocy/ignorance (in the latter).


a working rock guitarist, perhaps. rock guitar is among some of the easiest shit. doesn't make it bad, but playing rock isn't really indicative of someone's playing ability (unless it's all someone can play, which indicates not only an extremely closed mind, but fairly poor musicianship overall).


why would we flame? you've posted truths.

you simply have an inaccurate understanding of what you're talking about.


Who cares if rock is easy or not? It's what at least 95% of kids want to play when they pick up the guitar. I don't look at it as "closed mindedness". I don't want to play jazz, for example, as it's not what inspires me. I don't want to play classical guitar as it's not what inspires me.

Hendrix was a blues and soul guitarist. Does that make his muscianship poor? He's regarded as one of the greatest guitarists ever. Same with Page. Same with Jeff Beck. Are you saying that their musicianship is poor because they are regarded as great rock guitarists? I'm not understanding your logic.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to learn theory through and through. I'm certainly in that ilk. I've learned enough to get by and be able to play what I want. At the end of the day that's all that matters. For the record, I'll take Hendrix (musically illiterate) over Vai (theory master) anyday in terms of their music.
#71
Quote by deepfat
For the record, I'll take Hendrix (musically illiterate) over Vai (theory master) anyday in terms of their music.


hendrix wasn't musically illiterate and vai isn't a theory master

thanks for skipping my post about how music theory isn't about being able to sightread to show off
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.
#72
Quote by Hail
hendrix wasn't musically illiterate and vai isn't a theory master

thanks for skipping my post about how music theory isn't about being able to sightread to show off


Sure Hendrix was musically illiterate. He couldn't read it or write it and that's common knowledge. YouTube an interview with Zappa...he literally said that Hendrix was musically illiterate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtIRvztbwY

It's not about sight reading, I agree, although that's part of it. That said, being able to understand how what you're playing all fits into the puzzle is the only real benefit of understanding theory.
#74
Quote by macashmack
How is that a lost interview if it's right here?



Good point. Not sure.
#75
Quote by deepfat
Sure Hendrix was musically illiterate. He couldn't read it or write it and that's common knowledge. YouTube an interview with Zappa...he literally said that Hendrix was musically illiterate.


compared to Zappa he might've been musically illiterate. Reading and writing aren't all there is to it by far.

Quote by deepfat
That said, being able to understand how what you're playing all fits into the puzzle is the only real benefit of understanding theory.


edit: And that should be more than enough motivation for most people to learn theory... "Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive" is something I've seen on these forums several times. And it's entirely true: theory isn't a rulebook for music, but rather a language to describe its different elements with.
Last edited by CryogenicHusk at Dec 5, 2012,
#76
Quote by deepfat
Who cares if rock is easy or not? It's what at least 95% of kids want to play when they pick up the guitar. I don't look at it as "closed mindedness". I don't want to play jazz, for example, as it's not what inspires me. I don't want to play classical guitar as it's not what inspires me.


well, that's you. it's a type of closed-mindedness, voluntary or not. if you don't want to do something, you're closing yourself to it. rationalize it however you want, and it leads rather smoothly into the next point.

Quote by deepfat
Hendrix was a blues and soul guitarist. Does that make his muscianship poor? He's regarded as one of the greatest guitarists ever. Same with Page. Same with Jeff Beck. Are you saying that their musicianship is poor because they are regarded as great rock guitarists? I'm not understanding your logic.


page and hendrix are sloppy players. good players, iconic players, great guitarists - but compare their musicianship to the classical and jazz greats whom you have no interest in, and the obvious conclusion is that their musicianship is...well, i wouldn't say poor, not by a long shot. but inferior, definitely. i don't know if i'd class beck as being there, though -- personally i think beck is much better than the other two.

they do not have inferior musicianship because they are regarded as rock guitarists, they have inferior musicianship because they have inferior musicianship. perhaps the reason you can't follow my logic is because you're inferring points i never made.

Quote by deepfat
Not everyone has the time or inclination to learn theory through and through. I'm certainly in that ilk. I've learned enough to get by and be able to play what I want. At the end of the day that's all that matters. For the record, I'll take Hendrix (musically illiterate) over Vai (theory master) anyday in terms of their music.


personally, i'm not a fan of either hendrix or vai.

if you've learned enough to get by, to enjoy yourself, than that's fine. after all, what can be said against that?

just that it's not a valid excuse to make judgments on topics you voluntarily choose not to delve deeper into.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#77
Quote by AeolianWolf
if you've learned enough to get by, to enjoy yourself, than that's fine. after all, what can be said against that?

just that it's not a valid excuse to make judgments on topics you voluntarily choose not to delve deeper into.


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.
#78
Who needs music literacy when you have the power of rock???

Oh, Hail, you slippery bastard.
Last edited by Vlasco at Dec 5, 2012,
#79
Quote by Akula KO
I still maintain that it is possible to make new guitar music just by taking what you've learned through observation, taking techniques you have learned and improvising and developing it into something new.

Thanks.

I completely agree. Though expanding on what you said I think it should be noted that music theory is the observation by and of our collective musical culture throughout history.

So on the one hand you have the collective observations of all the great music makers, music teachers, and music lovers throughout history all yours for the taking to do with what you like. And on the other hand you can choose to rely solely on your own musical observations to get you by.

Coming back to your point though. Music theory is not essential to creating brilliant world changing music.
Si
#80
Quote by 20Tigers
I completely agree. Though expanding on what you said I think it should be noted that music theory is the observation by and of our collective musical culture throughout history.

So on the one hand you have the collective observations of all the great music makers, music teachers, and music lovers throughout history are yours for the taking to do with what you like. And on the other hand you can choose to rely solely on your own musical observations to get you by.

Coming back to your point though. Music theory is not essential to creating brilliant world changing music.


i mean, ultimately, this is the endgame. i can't disagree with any point asserted here.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.