Page 1 of 3
#1
I can't be the only one that wishes they had friends to talk about music with. Whenever I learn something cool I wanna talk about it with someone and bounce ideas off of each other, but I don't really have those kinds of friends. Do you talk about music with your significant other?

If only there was a website like social media but for musicians. Like ultimate-musician.com or something. I couldn't imagine what a website full of only guitarists would be like lol but seriously... Do we just have too many opposing opinions to make this work?

Websites like Reddit are usually too busy talking about gear and nobody really talks about theory. Theory is fun to me, I enjoy discussion.
#2
There's a forum here that isn't called The Pit that's called Musician's Talk
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
#4
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers at #33856663
I can't be the only one that wishes they had friends to talk about music with. Whenever I learn something cool I wanna talk about it with someone and bounce ideas off of each other, but I don't really have those kinds of friends. Do you talk about music with your significant other?

If only there was a website like social media but for musicians. Like ultimate-musician.com or something. I couldn't imagine what a website full of only guitarists would be like lol but seriously... Do we just have too many opposing opinions to make this work?

Websites like Reddit are usually too busy talking about gear and nobody really talks about theory. Theory is fun to me, I enjoy discussion.

You're looking for a niche market and people that understand theory are generally very proper towards it, from what I can gather, you aren't
A poem.
Quote by yoman297
no girl, movember isnt for you. shave your stache pls

I can out-bore you any day
#5
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers at #33856663

If only there was a website like social media but for musicians.



Yeah, if only....
#6
What about........ This site?


Or don't you like the answers you are getting at MT?
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
#7
I'm pretty desperate to discuss experimental art in general. There are a few folks on here that take interest - just observe which ones mention certain things, and build a clique via Tinychat or Facebook or whatever. People are there - you just have to pay attention to them.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#8
I kinda feel ya. I mean, I have musical friends, but they're more about that metal lyfe, and I'm cool with that, but they try to turn every song into metal and I ain't about that.
Seattle Seahawks


Quote by chookiecookie
i feel like you have an obsession with aubrey plaza.


Quote by WCPhils
at least we can all agree SGstriker is the woooooooooooooooooooooorst
#11
It's almost like there's already entire institutions of learning and communities dedicated to such endeavors

Funny how the world works

edit: To answer your question, there is basically nobody in my life who is equally (or similarly) musically minded to me. I just don't have a similar level musician in my group of friends. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm a loner anyways, so it doesn't particularly haunt me.
My God, it's full of stars!
#12
Quote by Dreadnought


edit: To answer your question, there is basically nobody in my life who is equally (or similarly) musically minded to me. I just don't have a similar level musician in my group of friends. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm a loner anyways, so it doesn't particularly haunt me.


This. So much this
Seattle Seahawks


Quote by chookiecookie
i feel like you have an obsession with aubrey plaza.


Quote by WCPhils
at least we can all agree SGstriker is the woooooooooooooooooooooorst
#15
Quote by cha33 armstrong
Try bodybuilding.com


"I'm taking creatine (1,5g/day) em I no longer natty? Thanks."

"A girl walked past me today. Have I made it?"
Quote by arcanom
Mint and chocolate shouldnt be togather.
"Literally Worst Post of 2k16" approved by After Eight Lovers...
#16
Sarcastic banter aside, I feel ya, man. I felt like this for several years until I found my current bandmates through an ad and I talk about music with them. We've all got similar tastes but none of us is narrow-minded or closed onto one genre. The other guitarist even comes from a musical family where everyone plays in an orchestra or a string quartet of some sorts so I can actually learn a lot of theoretical stuff from him.

Keep searching, man. Put out an ad or something or go to a decent music school, there's lots of people like that out there.
#17
Most my friends listen to pop punk or chugcore, which I don't really listen to as much anymore. I don't have any friends that are into guitar either, the ones that wanted to learn guitar never put in the effort to learn to play properly.

So yeah I know your feel, I have few people to talk to about music.
#18
diggin that acid jazz in your sc followed

all the people i jam with who are into theory have background in orchestra/band in school. I enjoy learning a little, and most of it goes over my head if i jump into a convo. But im glad to have a few friends that i can talk to when it comes to riffs/solos ideas and creating song structure.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
There shall be a stop to this madness. The battle is not over. My tasty licks aren't going anywhere.

Quote by The_Blode
^ I've just realised if you say Simple Plan's 2011 effort "Get Your Heart On!" really fast in a Southern American accent, it sounds gross. . .like sexual gross!

Quote by Necroheadbanger
Hello.
I'm looking for professional bongo-ists and triangle-ists to make a Progressive Technical Brutal Death Metal band
(will be called AxOxJxLxAxIxVxXxUxWxZxQxUxRxWxGxJxSxAxLxKxMxNxHxUxGxAxAxWxVxCxBxZxVx)
(Don't even ask what it means)


https://soundcloud.com/95dank



#19
Join a band cha
You Dont Know Me

I have 10 Anarchy Points - I also have 8 Mythology points!

Peavey Generation EXP Custom White
Yamaha 120S Black
Korg AX5G
Digitech Whammy
Zvex Fuzz Factory
Boss OS2

Quote by mrfinkle213
This man has brains.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Banned for indirect reference.
#21
Some of my friends are up to date with good hip hop, so talking to them is fun. Most of them don't go beyond fm music, but I guess they enjoy listening to me get passionate about gear/music with the random musician at a bar.
.
#22
Quote by MaggaraMarine
What about........ This site?


Or don't you like the answers you are getting at MT?


I don't think he likes the answers that he's getting.
Skip the username, call me Billy
#23
There's always music to talk about your friends with.

But if you insist on geeking out about theory you can always go to some sort of music school or take music classes.
Or become a music teacher.
#24
Quote by aerosmithfan95
I don't think he likes the answers that he's getting.

I hate the answers I get. I have my own way of doing things and naming things, just like Alan Holdsworth. I don't think my way is the right way but it certainly works for me. Whenever I go to the musicians forum I end up arguing about definitions and names rather than learning about what I wanna learn about.

Like someone said earlier in this thread, most music majors like to be proper about it and use the proper terms and definitions. For instance, I call the major scale the Melodic Major scale. Why? Because it makes sense to me. The Harmonic Major scale has a b6, the Melodic Minor scale has a b3, the harmonic minor scale has a b3 and a b6. It only makes sense to call the Ionian scale Melodic major because it has a natural 6 and major 3.

The little things like that make it difficult for me to talk to people because people would rather argue with me about all the reasons why I shouldn't call it the melodic major scale rather than just teaching me things.

Or when I say a song is in x/y and y =\= 4. That is totally possible. It's a poly meter.

You can have 5 pulses subdivided by 3.

|--|--|--|--|--|

And you can have 3 pulses subdivided by 5
|----|----|----|

I understand the proper way of writing this is to say 5/4 and make everything triplets for the top and 3/4 and make everything quintuplets for the bottom. But that doesn't satisfy my want to simplify things. Writing 5/3 and 3/5 makes more sense. But just cuz I am crazy doesn't mean we can't talk about cool odd time signatures.

Anyway, I would love to hear you guys teach cool music theory concepts you've learned.

I'm working on the concept of resolving a dominant 7th chord. As I explained earlier, those 4 scales are the only 4 "proper" diatonic scales as explained in diatonic scale theory. They all have 4 minor 3rds and 3 major 3rds. They also all have a dominant 7 chord and the tonic (the 4th) aka they all have a G7 chord and a C note. The only differences are the 3 and the 6'th scale degrees. Which tells me the dominant 7 chord resolving to the tonic is the most important aspect of music theory.

Thus I am looking for ways to resolve the G7. Different inversions and stuff.
#25
Quote by Dreadnought


edit: To answer your question, there is basically nobody in my life who is equally (or similarly) musically minded to me. I just don't have a similar level musician in my group of friends. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm a loner anyways, so it doesn't particularly haunt me.


I do have one friend I can talk about music with, or even just art in general.
He's light years ahead of me as far as knowledge and talent in music goes, but he still finds time to talk to lowly ol' me about music.

My sister and I have similar tastes in music, but when it comes to something like songwriting or the creation process in music, she's lost.
My Niece (sister's daughter) was a fashion designer so she has that "creative soul" in her and we can talk about something like songwriting or the creation process in music for hours on end.
Unfortunately, she's in Germany right now
#26
Well talking about music theory is lIke talking about how your cheeseburger was made. It's super boring and not many people want to do it.
#28
Quote by EyeNon15
Well talking about music theory is lIke talking about how your cheeseburger was made. It's super boring and not many people want to do it.

Unless I make amazing cheeseburgers and other people want to learn not only what I use to make my burger but why it tastes good.

Some people just don't care. But that's not the point. The point is I care and it's depressing thinking you're the only one.
#29
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
Unless I make amazing cheeseburgers and other people want to learn not only what I use to make my burger but why it tastes good.

Nah, even then it's still boring as shit to talk about how burgers are made.
#30
Idk I like telling people how I cook things, especially if it's something that branches off from the normal.

I typically add a lot of Worcestershire sauce to my burgers. I just love the flavor of it.


I think he's being more dramatic than is needed, but I don't think that analogy is bad.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#31
Quote by EyeNon15
Nah, even then it's still boring as shit to talk about how burgers are made.

Would you like it if I told you what you like thinking and talking about was boring as shit? I don't think so. You talk as if your opinion is law and everyone thinks music theory and cheeseburgers are boring. I bet Devin Townsend would love to talk cheeseburger theory.
#32
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
I hate the answers I get. I have my own way of doing things and naming things, just like Alan Holdsworth. I don't think my way is the right way but it certainly works for me. Whenever I go to the musicians forum I end up arguing about definitions and names rather than learning about what I wanna learn about.


You understand that to discuss music we need to use the same language?

I think it's great that you are trying to make sense of music. But to me you always come off as a bit arrogant. I don't know what it is. But I remember some of your threads and I always get that feeling from you. And I don't get it from many people here.

I'm not trying to mock you or anything, I'm just being honest. So don't take it as mockery. But I remember many of your threads where you tried to insist your way is the right way and no other way makes sense. Or at least you came off that way. It feels like you are not willing to listen to other people and learn from their advice. And it also kind of seems like you think you know everything and aren't really willing to discuss.


Like someone said earlier in this thread, most music majors like to be proper about it and use the proper terms and definitions. For instance, I call the major scale the Melodic Major scale. Why? Because it makes sense to me. The Harmonic Major scale has a b6, the Melodic Minor scale has a b3, the harmonic minor scale has a b3 and a b6. It only makes sense to call the Ionian scale Melodic major because it has a natural 6 and major 3.

The little things like that make it difficult for me to talk to people because people would rather argue with me about all the reasons why I shouldn't call it the melodic major scale rather than just teaching me things.

"Harmonic major" is a later invention. The definitions have to do with history. There is just one major scale and it is the major scale. There are three minor scales that aren't really different... I mean, they don't exist in a vacuum. It's all about the minor key that commonly uses certain alterations. And those alterations get different names. Why is harmonic minor called harmonic minor? Because in a minor key the harmony is mostly derived from that scale. It has the leading tone that strengthens the minor key feel. It is harmonically stronger.

Why is melodic minor called melodic minor? Because it is used melodically. It is used to make melodies "smoother". The most common way of using melodic minor in a song is over the V chord. You have that leading tone but avoid that "exotic" sounding augmented 2nd between the 6th and 7th scale degrees. It creates "better" melodies.

And natural minor is called natural minor because it can be built with all naturals (the white keys on piano).

Again, these concepts don't work in a vacuum. They need a context.

Find a minor piece and it will most likely "mix" natural, melodic and harmonic minor (especially when talking about classical music). But I think treating the three minors as different concepts kind of misses the point. They only make sense in context. They are all part of the minor key and we just have explanations for the way the minor key "behaves".


We don't need "melodic major" because there is just one major scale and it is built with all naturals. Just call it "major".

Now, harmonic major is another thing. My knowledge of it is not that great to be honest. But most of its use can (and should) be explained with modal mixture. I don't think it really is a stand alone scale either. Maybe it has some application in jazz improvisation (CST).


I see no point in reinventing theory and calling the major scale "melodic major". It has nothing to do with the three minor scales.


Or when I say a song is in x/y and y =\= 4. That is totally possible. It's a poly meter.

You can have 5 pulses subdivided by 3.

|--|--|--|--|--|

And you can have 3 pulses subdivided by 5
|----|----|----|

I understand the proper way of writing this is to say 5/4 and make everything triplets for the top and 3/4 and make everything quintuplets for the bottom. But that doesn't satisfy my want to simplify things. Writing 5/3 and 3/5 makes more sense. But just cuz I am crazy doesn't mean we can't talk about cool odd time signatures.


I understand what you are talking about, but how would you notate all that? And what would it sound like? The examples I have heard from you have never sounded like actual irregular time signatures. Remember that music is all about sound, and if something doesn't sound like something, it is not that.

Maybe the example you gave here would sound different. I don't know. I would need to hear it to tell if it actually sounds like an irregular time signature or not.


Anyway, I would love to hear you guys teach cool music theory concepts you've learned.

I'm working on the concept of resolving a dominant 7th chord. As I explained earlier, those 4 scales are the only 4 "proper" diatonic scales as explained in diatonic scale theory. They all have 4 minor 3rds and 3 major 3rds. They also all have a dominant 7 chord and the tonic (the 4th) aka they all have a G7 chord and a C note. The only differences are the 3 and the 6'th scale degrees. Which tells me the dominant 7 chord resolving to the tonic is the most important aspect of music theory.

Thus I am looking for ways to resolve the G7. Different inversions and stuff.


By "those 4 scales" are you referring to major, harmonic minor, melodic minor and harmonic major? If yes, I don't think harmonic major is a diatonic scale. Also, as I said, most "harmonic major" stuff is actually modal mixture that has nothing to do with harmonic major. (Also, the strictest definition of "diatonic scale" would be scales that can be constructed with white keys only.)

But yeah, V7-I is important. It is pretty much the basis of tonal harmony.

I would suggest learning about voice leading.


BTW, I don't think people are necessarily trying to say you are wrong. They are just explaining the conventional way and why things are named the way they are named. And as I said, it is important that people speak the same language. That way people understand each other much better.

And if people give you critique, I would suggest listening to it. That's how you learn. To me it kind of feels like all of your threads are like "here's something I have been thinking of lately - give me your opinions about it" and then when people give their opinions about it, you don't listen to them at all. And that's what always bothers me. I'm more than happy to learn about new concepts. But if I see something that I disagree with or have another way of explaining it, I'm going to tell you about it. You don't need to change your ways, but you don't need to get defensive either.


I don't know what's wrong with learning conventional theory. You learn about exactly the same things, but you learn to use the names the way everybody else understands it. The whole point of theory is to be able to communicate. And if everybody has their own explanations for everything, it kind of misses the point.


And I think music theory is interesting so shut up, EyeNon15. If you don't like it, don't talk about it.
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
Last edited by MaggaraMarine at Feb 28, 2016,
#33
I will admit, my social skills suck and I'm sure every time I speak I sound like a douchebag, but it's not what I'm trying to do. It just happens. I keep trying though.

The reason I want to call it the Melodic major scale is because major scale can mean Ionian Lydian or Mixolydian. I also don't like calling Aeolian the minor scale because minor scale can mean Dorian, Phrygian or Aeolian.

Is there an official definition of melody and harmony? I am assuming harmonic means b6 and melodic means natural 6 because the melodic minor has a natural 6 and the harmonic minor has a b6. Harmonic major has a flat 6 too. It just makes sense to me but I understand if I say this song is in the key of C melodic major people are gonna be like wtf. But if I say this song is in C minor, I could easily be co fused too because C Phrygian is C minor too. I like calling keys by their mode name.

An example of the time signature can be found in my sig. The whole song is pretty much the example I just gave of 5's and 3's but it's 5's and 4's instead. To summarize, think of a 4/4 beat and a 5/4 beat playing at the same time and looping at the same time rather than looping every 20 beats.

Harmonic major is a diatonic scale because it has 4 m3rds and 3 major 3rds an none of the intervals get in the way of another, for example the 3rds are always smaller than the 4ths and bigger than the 2nds. Rothenberg Propriety is the wiki link name. I ended up reading his books and the wiki article is wrong. It says there are 5 proper diatonic scales but the 5th isn't actually proper according to the actual texts he wrote.

Harmonic major is actually pretty neat. It gives you the feeling of harmonic minor but it's a major sound.

I also think the locrian b4 mode of melodic minor is pretty cool too. So is the Lydian b7 mode. I do t understand what they have to do with melody, I just understand the feeling they give.

Edit: I do stick to conventional means most of the time. Tbh, I do a lot of troubleshooting and I always end up back to the standard. Except the way I tune. I think all guitarists should tune to E A D G C F.

Why?

Let's say you spend all day memorizing the melodic minor shapes in standard tuning. Let's say you wanna play the G Mixolydian b6 mode of the melodic minor scale, but instead of playing it on the low E, you wanna play it an octave higher, starting on the 10th fret A string, your shape is gonna change. It's not gonna work there. Nothing works. It's a giant mess in standard. The guitar is supposed to be the master of transposition and key modulation because it has frets instead of keys, but you can't fully unlock that potential until it is tuned symmetrically.
Last edited by jrcsgtpeppers at Feb 28, 2016,
#34
Quote by Eastwinn
strategic conformity


italianspidermanreaction.gif
My God, it's full of stars!
#35
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
I hate the answers I get. I have my own way of doing things and naming things, just like Alan Holdsworth. I don't think my way is the right way but it certainly works for me. Whenever I go to the musicians forum I end up arguing about definitions and names rather than learning about what I wanna learn about.

Like someone said earlier in this thread, most music majors like to be proper about it and use the proper terms and definitions. For instance, I call the major scale the Melodic Major scale. Why? Because it makes sense to me. The Harmonic Major scale has a b6, the Melodic Minor scale has a b3, the harmonic minor scale has a b3 and a b6. It only makes sense to call the Ionian scale Melodic major because it has a natural 6 and major 3.

The little things like that make it difficult for me to talk to people because people would rather argue with me about all the reasons why I shouldn't call it the melodic major scale rather than just teaching me things.

Or when I say a song is in x/y and y =\= 4. That is totally possible. It's a poly meter.

You can have 5 pulses subdivided by 3.

|--|--|--|--|--|

And you can have 3 pulses subdivided by 5
|----|----|----|

I understand the proper way of writing this is to say 5/4 and make everything triplets for the top and 3/4 and make everything quintuplets for the bottom. But that doesn't satisfy my want to simplify things. Writing 5/3 and 3/5 makes more sense. But just cuz I am crazy doesn't mean we can't talk about cool odd time signatures.

Anyway, I would love to hear you guys teach cool music theory concepts you've learned.

I'm working on the concept of resolving a dominant 7th chord. As I explained earlier, those 4 scales are the only 4 "proper" diatonic scales as explained in diatonic scale theory. They all have 4 minor 3rds and 3 major 3rds. They also all have a dominant 7 chord and the tonic (the 4th) aka they all have a G7 chord and a C note. The only differences are the 3 and the 6'th scale degrees. Which tells me the dominant 7 chord resolving to the tonic is the most important aspect of music theory.

Thus I am looking for ways to resolve the G7. Different inversions and stuff.


Ya, well, that's the deal if you decide to redefine everything. You're not going to find others in the world that redefined everything the same way you did.

If you don't like that, then learn the common definitions, and you can discuss with others that way.

There are 2 purposes for language, and in this case, music theory. 1, is to help you think and visualize and organize concepts in some logical manner. The other, is to communicate with others about those concepts.

Some words in language are arbitrary. Someone just decided what a fruit was, and by that definition tomato is a fruit, even though we tend to think of it as a vegetable. Now, that might not make sense to you, so you call it a vegetable. Fine, but if you do that with every word, then you'll be good for thinking to yourself, and your own understanding, but you'll be speaking a different language that nobody else can understand.

If you want to converse with others, you need to learn a language other people speak. Not invent your own. I'm not gonna sit through 20 pages of your explanations of definitions, reading diagrams etcetera just to try and understand some concept you're trying to express.

So, if you find your way helps you play guitar better, then go for it. That's one of the purposes of theory. But if you want to accomplish the other purpose and speak to others, then you need to learn the language others speak.

That's what I did.

It really just appears to me that you're kind of whining and complaining that nobody else speaks your language you invented, which is kind of odd to me.

The little things like that make it difficult for me to talk to people because people would rather argue with me about all the reasons why I shouldn't call it the melodic major scale rather than just teaching me things.


That's kind of an odd thing to say I find, because teaching people theory is teaching how everything is organized and inter-related. It's all one big thing, and the reason one thing is named one way is because of how it relates to another way. So, it sounds like you want people to learn your own language, and then improve it by adding more definitions. You have definied things because of your own logic you decided on, but the logic they are currently named after, relates to all those things you wish people would teach you.

It's like you scrapped everything every great musician learned and discovered, and named, before you even ever understood any of it.

I couldn't discuss anything with you, because you would say some word, and I wouldn't understand it. Then if I was going to show you something, idk how I would do it without any of the words I know. It would even be tough on a guitar because you changed the way you tune your guitar.

You have cut yourself off from all other musicians, in so far as interactions like that. That's one of the shortcomings of your method. So, you either need to name everything twice, and know all of those, or live with not being able to communicate with others about music.

I could for sure show you a lot of stuff, but a lot of it is based on how the naming works. You use some logic, and diagrams or math for your naming system. Music theory uses the way stuff sounds to name things in a logical sense. So, the stuff you'd learn, the sounds, and how the concepts are applied are intimately connected with the naming conventions. You just don't know that, because you decided to rename everything some other way before you learned any of that.

Learn the conventional way first, then rename stuff differently if you prefer. At least that way you could communicate with others, and understand what you are deciding to do when you change a definition. Or don't, idk, it's up to you.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Feb 28, 2016,
#36
Quote by Dreadnought
italianspidermanreaction.gif


i 100% knew you would respond to that post
#37
Quote by Eastwinn
i 100% knew you would respond to that post


dammit
My God, it's full of stars!
#38
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers


The reason I want to call it the Melodic major scale is because major scale can mean Ionian Lydian or Mixolydian. I also don't like calling Aeolian the minor scale because minor scale can mean Dorian, Phrygian or Aeolian.
There are 3 minor modes and 3 major modes. If you say "THE major scale", that's ionian, if you say "THE minor scale", that's aeolian. It's not complicated. Just like if you say "THE pill" that's birth control, but there are lots of pills. But the fact that there are 3 minor modes, and 3 major modes, is important. It's just one of each is the most commonly used one by far.

Is there an official definition of melody and harmony? I am assuming harmonic means b6 and melodic means natural 6 because the melodic minor has a natural 6 and the harmonic minor has a b6. Harmonic major has a flat 6 too. It just makes sense to me but I understand if I say this song is in the key of C melodic major people are gonna be like wtf. But if I say this song is in C minor, I could easily be co fused too because C Phrygian is C minor too. I like calling keys by their mode name.
Harmony is multiple notes at once, melody is a melodic phrasing. Harmonic minor I would say probably gets its name because it is the scale you get from converting a v to a V in the minor key, which would be considered by some the conventional harmony of the minor key, even though that major 3rd of the V is not in the minor scale. Melodic minor might just be called that way because of how that note only really works for melody, or I do believe it is used differently in ascending and descending in some types of music, and got its name because of that, idk. But harmony doesn't mean b6. Harmony means harmony, multiple notes played together, is a harmony.


Edit: I do stick to conventional means most of the time. Tbh, I do a lot of troubleshooting and I always end up back to the standard. Except the way I tune. I think all guitarists should tune to E A D G C F.

Why?

Let's say you spend all day memorizing the melodic minor shapes in standard tuning. Let's say you wanna play the G Mixolydian b6 mode of the melodic minor scale, but instead of playing it on the low E, you wanna play it an octave higher, starting on the 10th fret A string, your shape is gonna change. It's not gonna work there. Nothing works. It's a giant mess in standard. The guitar is supposed to be the master of transposition and key modulation because it has frets instead of keys, but you can't fully unlock that potential until it is tuned symmetrically.


I've already told you this is a bad idea for me because it is limiting for the chords I am able to play. I can play any scale I ever use, starting in any position, and on any string. It's really easy. It's not as immediately visually obvious when you're starting out, as your tuning is, but I don't care. I can play guitar the way I can play guitar now. That's what matters to me. The height of the potential of my system, not how easy it is to learn at first.

I can play any phrase my mind thinks of, so my system works well for me. It has never happened to me where I got stuck and couldn't play something because my tuning system was too difficult. Or actually, for chords, it has happened, and I hate that. The most common offender is something like
6
5
4
5
3
x

Or instead of that 6, basically anything that isn't 3 or 7.

And I hate that, because then I have to drop the root, which turns the maj7 into a minor chord, or I can play it as a normal major chord, and I lose the maj7, which is not so bad for a 7 on the top string in that example, since that's the maj7th again. Stuff like that. And that's standard tuning, which already gets me every once in a while. For your tuning I'd be going nuts every 5 minutes. So there's no way I would ever want to use your system. That kind of thing would happen to me all the time. I've told you this before. I know what guitar is, and I can guitar pretty good. Idk why you think "every guitarist should tune this way." No, definitely I should not, because I know how I play guitar now, and tuning like that would make me worse.

Your tuning system makes a lot of chords physically impossible to play. My tuning system makes learning scales a little more difficult. But I've learned them now, so I can do anything your tuning system lets you do as far as phrasing goes, as far as solos go, and also I have more diversity in chord grips at my disposal. So, I don't see why anyone would want to learn your system. Except for Stanley Jordan, that strictly fingertaps and does harmony and the soloing at the same time. He tunes that way, and that's really sensible for his style, imo. It's easier visually like you say, which is important two handed like that, and he is using two hands, so the limitations of chord grips disappears.

You're not the first to notice that the B tuning changed the pattern. The people that chose that tuning and made it popular, were well aware of that, and yet still chose to do it that way.

EDIT: I'll also add, that as far as I can tell, on your mission to make everything as simple as possible, you've made it way more complicated than it ever needed to be, and way more complicated than standard music theory actually is. It's really simple the way it is. Really basic. I care about simplicity a lot, and I would gladly change everything to make it more simple, and I would never whine about the fact I can't talk to people about theory, I'd be totally fine with that. Except it's already as simple as I can think of making it. For guitar there is one thing I'd change for roman numerals, and for sheet music, I'd rotate everything 90 degrees, but other other than that, I can't think of how I could organize it any more simply than the greatest musicians of all time have already done. They did a good job, imo.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Feb 28, 2016,
#39
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
Would you like it if I told you what you like thinking and talking about was boring as shit? I don't think so.

If I made a thread about it sure, I'd have to accept it.
You should have been clear that you want to make a thread to nerd out about music theory.
Because this thread is not worded that way at all.
I'm sure some obscure farmers would love nothing more than to talk about how they chop cows heads off to get cheeseburgers.
But if that obscure farmer made a thread and was puzzled as to why none of his friends want to talk about it with him, he should expect to be give reasons why.
#40
Quote by Dreadnought
dammit


we're both hollow shells of the great users we once were
Page 1 of 3