Page 1 of 2
#1
For a number of reasons, I think since the last 15/ 20 years that learning music and getting into an instrument is easier than ever before.

First off, there are now plenty of brands making quality, very affordable instruments. Some gear that due to their nature would be too loud and large to be practical for many people (like pianos and drum sets) can be easily replaced with reliable equipment that doesn't feel like a POS when compared to the "real" acoustic thing. When it comes to amps, you can get very cheap SS modeling amps that doesn't suck, or even with a single valve that can emulate full valve amps - in fact, you can ditch the need for an amp completely and use your PC and emulation software if you only want to practice or make recordings.

Besides being a lot cheaper to get good equipment, you have countless free digital books, guides and video tutorials made by professional musicians, and even places like UG to meet and ask questions to other people all around the world. You can learn music and how to play an instrument for free as long as you put the minimal amount of effort.

I'm not around breathing the same air as you for that long, but I can say it's clear before many companies developed better ways to manufacture quality cheap instruments, and the Internet surged and became a mainstream thing full of quality, free to access info, not only it would've cost you a lot more to begin, but also had to get books of arguable quality or have to pay for classes. Ofc if you want the best professional level instruments and further develop your skills you'll probably rely on the same methods, however to begin with it's a lot more easier.

So, what are your opinion about the subject? Perhaps you got into music a few decades ago and can share your own experiences? Do you think many people never learnt music despite wanting to because of these difficulties?
'07 Jackson Pro Dinky DK2M (MIJ)
Squier Strat SE
Marshall Valvestate VS15R practice amp
#2
I generally agree, though the ease of access to information also has its downsides. I think taking private lessons from a teacher is still the best way of learning. Yes, everything is on the internet but you also need to know how to apply all the information. And without the help of somebody who knows what they are doing it can be a bit of a hit and miss. Also, in the internet everybody supposedly knows everything about everything, and if you don't have the ability to differentiate between good information and misinformation (which no beginner musician has), you may learn a lot of stuff that does more harm than good.

Also, the internet may make people have some unrealistic expectations because people are used to getting what they want instantly (and watching TV shows like "The Voice" or "American Idol" doesn't help at all). But becoming good at playing an instrument takes a lot of time. Some people expect to master the instrument in a couple of months or a couple of years and get disappointed when they still suck after they have been playing for two weeks.

Also, because stuff like tabs are so easy to find, people don't necessarily train their ears any more because if they want to figure how to play something, they can just Google it. Of course there is nothing wrong with tabs and they can actually make learning easier, but people shouldn't be 100% dependent on them (and also, since they are posted by random people, their quality varies).

But as I said, I mostly agree. And especially when it comes to beginning to play an instrument, it's definitely easier today.
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
#3
You are totally correct, in one hand everyone can be a "teacher" online and so there's plenty of bad or not as good or useful lessons and tutorials around, and in the other some things might bring some learning "laziness" such as tabs.

However, regarding to the first problem, many people that get into music have a friend, family member and such that is already and can point them the best places to start from and, even if that's not the case, most music dedicated websites have some sort of beginner's guide with what to learn first and where. Secondly, I think part of the self-improvement process is to impose ourselves improvement - not only when it comes to techniques, gradually play more complicated stuff, but also getting out of the comfort zone and trying to get the eyes out of tabs once is a while. The attention to the sound comes with practice and you might know at some point on early days learning you could already tell when something didn't sound ok, and so people can not only tell if a tab is wrong, but also not having to strictly learn only from them - but, as anything, it comes to the own person to take the move to improve on that matter, if someone can't take the effort to improve then a teacher to guide them is an inevitable necessity.

About people coming in with wrong expectations... That happens in everything, and I believe it would happen more often before the Internet. I mean (and by own experience), before I went into learning how to play the guitar I watched some beginner's videos and everyone made it clear it took time and effort to get decent at it. A few decades ago, who'd tell you that? The Guitar Center employee, whose best interest is for you to buy an instrument? A guitar teacher, that the longer you take to learn the best for him? My point is, that false idea of easiness always happens since people gain interest from bands and seeing other people playing as always, yet now have a lot more info telling them otherwise and making it clear what they're getting into.
'07 Jackson Pro Dinky DK2M (MIJ)
Squier Strat SE
Marshall Valvestate VS15R practice amp
#4
On one level I agree with the original premise but having the access via the internet also has it's drawbacks so I agree with MaggaraMairne on that level. I also believe that the internet has allowed tons of people who make any sound at all to record and post it whether or not it has any merit. The internet is loaded with untalented people who don't understand why people don't instantly love their "music". In days gone by in order to get your music out to the public it passed through a few objective hands before it was issued for public consumption. While I agree that that was largely an over abused system now we have a free-for-all.  Just post anything,whether it is good or bad, borrowed or outright stolen. This has led to a situation where it's hard to find quality music and original ideas among all the badly performed, badly recorded, unoriginal stuff that gets posted everyday. That's the way it is. I think the public understands more than we think and they have given up trying so instead of searching for something new and different, they have retreated to old, tired and safe. 

One thing that is definitely not better is the opportunity to play live. I can only speak for my own area but while I was forming bands back in the 70's-80's, there were lots of places for a decent band to play. I was in several "house band" situations where clubs had entertainment Wednesday through Saturday and your band got booked for 4-5 months consecutively and even local cover bands could actually make a living playing music while learning their craft. There were dozens of places in my area that did this for many years but sadly they all have either closed or stopped having anything but a DJ or Karaoke night. I don't blame this on the music, it's just what has developed. Too bad. Those were golden days for musicians who wanted to play often and make a low but decent living.
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at May 2, 2017,
#5
When I started learning, there was no Internet, very very few decent guitar books, and no digital stuff ... had to learn everything through a mix of by ear (slowing down records to 17.5 rpm) and better player friends of mine.  No accessible theory books other than very heavy duty classical theory, which scared the life out me then.  But guitars and amps were still well priced, as were effects pedals.

So yes, there is a load more stuff available now ... just have to be cautious with misinformation ... and that's where pro-quality teaching comes in, be it online or private ... from reputable folk,
#6
Quote by Rickholly74
I also believe that the internet has allowed tons of people who make any sound at all to record and post it whether or not it has any merit. The internet is loaded with untalented people who don't understand why people don't instantly love their "music". In days gone by in order to get your music out to the public it passed through a few objective hands before it was issued for public consumption. While I agree that that was largely an over abused system now we have a free-for-all.  Just post anything,whether it is good or bad, borrowed or outright stolen.


Bad bands and pseudo-musicians always existed, but you're right at least before they didn't had a voice. That voice had to be earned before, but that's the other side of easiness to promote your work worldwide.

Think about all the great modern bands and musicians that owe everything to the Internet to promote and kick-start their career. Also, in a lot of cases, a person or band might play something that isn't the "thing" where they live. Rock and metal suffer quite a lot on that matter for hardly being a mainstream genre, but in some places some folks hardly have any audience for that reason - but have lots of followers that appreciate their work worldwide.

Going back to those days you mentioned, won't you agree the amount of bad garage bands totally outnumbered the amount of talented ones? And wouldn't the bad ones try to reach the level of popularity of the talented ones, and in some way take some of the attention out of the latters, bring the attention of some other tasteless people that would replicate their "style" (so to speak) and ultimately give a bad reputation to the whole area music wise? My point is, there was, there are and there will always be untalented people that doesn't realise that. Nowadays it might be easier than ever to promote yourself as well, but we can't ignore the good due to the bad - and for some reason, those really good end up succeeding, while the others won't pass from ground zero.
'07 Jackson Pro Dinky DK2M (MIJ)
Squier Strat SE
Marshall Valvestate VS15R practice amp
Last edited by andre.fontes.es at May 2, 2017,
#7
Andre I agree with a lot of what you say. I was in many of those crappy garage bands you speak of and yes around me there was about a dozen. The good players with drive and ambition kept at it and the bad players with no real interest (other than being able to say they were in a band) went away. I think that is true today. 
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
#8
No...

As far as equipment resources, back then I started with a junk electric guitar and no amp at all for the first 6 years... yet I was in heaven becoming a guitarist never questioning if my picks, strings, frets, tuning machines, nut, pickups, pedals, or non-existent amp were the "right" ones personally for me - I just happily played. As far as instruction resources, I taught myself... yet I never experienced a single day of frustration, lack of progress, or any of the topics that pop up on the forum every day grumbling about this and that - I learned to play the guitar.  Both of those things worked fine because they cause one to have to work at it, which is quite different from being presented with gear and instructed.

But all that pales and means nothing because the biggest most influential impact on learning music is the quality of the music around you... and the music the last 15-20 years has been the crummiest I have heard... and that is what is supposed to inspire new guitarists?
Quote by reverb66
I'm pretty sure the Bible requires that you play through a tube amp in Texas.
#9
Paul...........I'm with you. My first guitar was a Japanese Zim-Gar one pickup guitar and an no name late 50's amp that put out about a watt of power. This was the 60's when Japanese guitars were pretty much garbage. I learned to play and moved up to a slightly better no name Japanese guitar for a few years with a Univox 50 watt amp (that's what it said, I doubt it) with a 12" speaker. I got my first quality guitar when my band was asked to back up up a singer/songwriter who was recording in a studio. I was embarrassed to use my Japanese guitar in a pro setting so I borrowed enough cash to put a down payment on a Hagstrom Viking semi-hollow guitar and a used Fender Super Reverb (two things I wish I still owned). 

I don't think you can find any guitar or amp made in the past 20 years that was as bad as my first set up  but no complaints. It got me started and I appreciate it. It didn't have anything to do with the quality of my equipment or the availability of instructions. Playing guitar was and still is my passion. 
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at May 2, 2017,
#10
Interesting point, and I see today you might perceive new players having a bit of snobbery, but in the other hand I'm sure those old low end guitars were still as expensive or even more than a quality affordable guitar of today, maybe even leaving some spare money to spend on custom parts. My argument on the matter is that even if more amateur guitar players tend to already care about what type of guitar, pickups and such would "fit" them the best as Paul pointed out, nowadays it's affordable to do so, and in theory that will allow people to take the most out of the instrument.

I understand that it might seem a lot of people act like they need quality stuff to he interested in playing yet you guys back in the day with low quality instruments managed to take the most out of them, learn perhaps more than the average new player today does with all those advantages and didn't complained, but what if back then someone told you for the price of those guitars you had, one day you could afford a quality Les Paul?

In the end, I think newcomers will do best with cheap instruments as long as they're good quality enough (that's what I did, my only regret is I didn't bought it used, I could've saved a ton of money) because I agree as well someone doesn't need great stuff to begin learning, there's always the possibility of quitting and so the initial investment won't be such a loss and people don't really have a "style" yet - but they got a quality instrument on a budget, nevertheless.
'07 Jackson Pro Dinky DK2M (MIJ)
Squier Strat SE
Marshall Valvestate VS15R practice amp
#11
I voted "Yes", for reasons mostly stated above.

I can't quite agree with this, though:
In the end, I think newcomers will do best with cheap instruments as long as they're good quality enough (that's what I did, my only regret is I didn't bought it used, I could've saved a ton of money) because I agree as well someone doesn't need great stuff to begin learning, there's always the possibility of quitting and so the initial investment won't be such a loss and people don't really have a "style" yet - but they got a quality instrument on a budget, nevertheless.


My first instrument (after voice) was a school cello. I improved my technique quickly, but more in spite of the instrument than because of it. A few months in, and my parents had bought me a low-level pro instrument that served me 20 years, and is now in the hands of my church's music minister who wanted to learn the instrument.*

My next instrument was a cheap Alvarez acoustic that I played unto destruction, replaced by an Ovation, which was in turn supplemented by a fretless bass. When I went electric, I splurged and bought 2 guitars, one of which is a Dean Time Capsule Cadillac.

For me, every "cheap" instrument felt...wrong in some way.

* he's got a Masters in Jazz from a top program, and already plays trumpet, piano, guitar and I don't know what else.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#12
This may be be only my perception but when I started playing to me there were only two levels of electric guitars. The low end, low priced stuff that was mostly made in Japan or the high end stuff made by Gibson, Fender, Gretsch, Epiphone, Guild and very few others. This stuff was generally not accessible to new first time players so most people got the Japanese guitars as their first instruments. They were sold in music stores as well as Sears catalogs even the local department stores. There was not much of a mid level guitar market at the time. These Japanese guitars were often difficult to play but since we had never played any quality guitars we all just struggled with the ridiculously high action, bad tone, feedback and did our best with what we had. There was also little access or thought given to upgraded parts or access to the knowledge of how to make changes since there was no internet or YouTube videos, no guitar parts catalogs like Stew Mac or All Parts. If you wanted something done you either figured it out yourself or paid to have someone at a music store do it. There was no "tab" for guitar and very little in the way of decent guitar instruction books except those that tried to teach you how to play jazz scales. With so much available now there is no excuse for not developing to whatever level of musician you want to be. There are almost no boundaries except in your own mind.

I'm not complaining at all, it was a different era and I relish having survived the challenges of my past which make me appreciate the developments that have occurred since (especially over the past 15 years). 
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
#13
My first was the only guitar on the shelf in a hardware/variety store ($29)... the cheapest guitar available today would be world class quality compared to it.

There is another difference; when I started I had no illusions that I would ever be a guitar player, that I would ever be any good, that I might ever play in a band, or perform on stage, or play studio sessions. Neither did any of my friends that played guitars. We just liked the music and playing the guitar.

This is why there was no worry about getting an amp right away, and no worrying about it after getting one - as far as we were concerned, good amps were what you used when you performed on stage... so this was not an issue. Same for the guitar and its qualities and features - that stuff was important for performers, not us; we had no plans to go that way.

Part of the equipment thing today is that guitars and amps are advertised and sold as the gear that will get you to the top of the music business. The hype is so strong there is now a whole generation of people nurturing the delusion that they can make it if they find the right gear, the right lesson method... and some of them coming to discover that it isn't going to happen and considering quitting. The big fat middle ground of just playing the guitar without any justification beyond simply loving the instrument and its music seems to have gotten thin these days. People feel guilty that they aren't "committed", or don't keep a rigorous schedule of drills and exercises, don't have the right guitars, or don't have enough of the right pedals on their board, or a stable of amps in preparation for stardom.
Quote by reverb66
I'm pretty sure the Bible requires that you play through a tube amp in Texas.
#14
We've never had more tools at our disposal, however, the one major impediment today is distraction. With smartphones, you tube etc, it's much more of a challenge to put in 4 hours or more a day of practice .
#15
Quote by reverb66
We've never had more tools at our disposal, however, the one major impediment today is distraction.  With smartphones, you tube etc, it's much more of a challenge to put in 4 hours or more a day of practice .

Ehhh, it's not like people didn't have books, or the radio, or tv, or friends before. I use my phone mainly to chat with my friends which is definitely not something I do all the time, and I use youtube a lot for actual practice since you find a lot of songs there. I think it'd be silly to say that a service like youtube would be more detrimental than beneficial to a musician.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#16
I don't think that there are more distractions, necessarily, so much as more distractions being immediately available.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#17
Quote by Kevätuhri
I think it'd be silly to say that a service like youtube would be more detrimental than beneficial to a musician.


That's not what I said - it's the combination of distractions that's the issue. You can't compare what is available 24/7 today to the radio or cable tv from the past - seriously.

There is no debate to be had - we live at the point in time with the most available distractions and I would extend that to say that one of the impacts of the tech is shortened attention spans. In the past I think it was easier to grind it out uninterrupted for hours on end.

Most people I know can't go 10 minutes without checking their phones - even during a jam session lol.
#18
Quote by reverb66


Most people I know can't go 10 minutes without checking their phones - even during a jam session lol.


Get one of these and feed your phone into its screen...

http://www.visionaryinstruments.com/products/video-guitars/tele-vision/
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#19
reverb66 

Fair enough. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that I don't think that the benefit modern technology offers is in any way overshadowed by it's distracting nature. I mean, just because you check your phone in a jam session doesn't mean you're not paying attention to the jam session, a lot of people can do simple multitasking.

Also, I just have to mention that "there is no debate to be had" is a silly thing to say. Of course there is a debate to be had, there is no objective proof or scientific research you're quoting here so you can't really claim your statements are fact. And I'm not trying to start an argument here or anything, it's just a pet peeve when people act like their opinion is a fact when it's pretty impossible to say whether or not that's true.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#20
Also on the claim that music of the past 20 years is uninspired: perhaps it's not to everyone's taste, or people just haven't searched enough. Djent is very different in focus from The Beatles, for example.
#21
Quote by Kevätuhri
reverb66

Also, I just have to mention that "there is no debate to be had" is a silly thing to say. Of course there is a debate to be had, there is no objective proof or scientific research you're quoting here so you can't really claim your statements are fact. And I'm not trying to start an argument here or anything, it's just a pet peeve when people act like their opinion is a fact when it's pretty impossible to say whether or not that's true.


Agree - i overstated that for sure
#22
Quote by NeoMvsEu
Also on the claim that music of the past 20 years is uninspired: perhaps it's not to everyone's taste, or people just haven't searched enough. Djent is very different in focus from The Beatles, for example.

"...or people just haven't searched enough."

That is the thing right there; back in the 60s - 70s nobody had to search for good music, it was already spontaneously surrounding us.
Never heard of Djent, could only tolerate a few seconds of the first that comes up on a youtube search.
Quote by reverb66
I'm pretty sure the Bible requires that you play through a tube amp in Texas.
#24
Quote by PlusPaul
"...or people just haven't searched enough."

That is the thing right there; back in the 60s - 70s nobody had to search for good music, it was already spontaneously surrounding us.
Never heard of Djent, could only tolerate a few seconds of the first that comes up on a youtube search.

This whole argument is so asinine I can't even believe I'm reading it on a forum called "musician talk". I really don't think that the problem is that good music wouldn't exist now, the problem is that classic rock/blues worshippers seem to be some of the most close-minded people ever We have better access to better music now than we've ever had before and I honestly feel plain bad for people who deliberately hate everything new just because it's new.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#25
I am not a classic rock/blues fan at all.
I don't hate the new music because it's new.
My opinion; it is increasingly non-musical people
producing an increasingly non-musical content
for an increasingly non-musical audience.


Quote by reverb66
I'm pretty sure the Bible requires that you play through a tube amp in Texas.
#26
You seem to be defining music as extremely tonal at its base. Rhythm is a very legitimate portion of music, and music that focuses on rhythm more than before does not seem to fit your tastes. However, one person's taste does not define music as it is played in the world.

Give an example of what you consider non-musical.
#27
Quote by PlusPaul
I am not a classic rock/blues fan at all.

That's my bad; sorry for assuming you were.
Quote by PlusPaul
I don't hate the new music because it's new.

You kind of do.
Quote by PlusPaul
My opinion; it is increasingly non-musical people
producing an increasingly non-musical content
for an increasingly non-musical audience.

I'm hesitant to call any opinion false, but I'll make an exception on this. Of course you can believe what you want, but if you pay any attention at all you'll see that the truth is the polar opposite of what you're trying to say.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#28
Quote by PlusPaul
I am not a classic rock/blues fan at all.
I don't hate the new music because it's new.
My opinion; it is increasingly non-musical people
producing an increasingly non-musical content
for an increasingly non-musical audience.


There are few people whose musical tastes are as broad as mine*, but I can see a grain of truth in this...but jut a grain.

I haven't cared for a lot- OK, nearly 99.999%- of the music using "Cookie Monster" Vox and even less intelligible vocal stylings. But I can also look back in history and across cultures and find whole genres of music not to my liking.

But I wouldn't go so far as calling it "non-musical", just based in an aesthetic I don't care for.


* here's a portion of my music collection
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#29
Quote by PlusPaul
I am not a classic rock/blues fan at all.
I don't hate the new music because it's new.
My opinion; it is increasingly non-musical people
producing an increasingly non-musical content
for an increasingly non-musical audience.


"non-musical people"

What does that mean? If people make music, they are clearly musical. Just because they don't play guitar or something are they no longer musicians? Many of the great classical composers wrote pieces of music for instruments that they themselves could not play.

"non-musical content"

On what grounds exactly? For most of the history of music, music was largely used mainly for accompanying dance or rituals. Therefore one could argue that since that was always arguably the primary purpose of music, and non-dance related music or non-religious music deviates from those purposes is less musical.

"non-musical audience"

Throughout history, the vast majority of music listeners have been non-musicians. This is true of just about any time period or genre.

I'm gonna be honest. I think that most commercial music of the 60s and 70s was kind of trash. Canned Heat? Seals and Croft? The Carpenters? Very popular in those decades and personally some of the worse things I have ever heard. The Beatles and the Stones? Can't stand either. Disco? No thanks. To be honest I couldn't name an artist that was popular throughout the 60s and 70s that I genuinely like that can really be considered popular or easy to find.

I think I really only like 60s and 70s bluegrass and country, and even the majority of 60s and 70s country was rubbish. Everything else I like from the period is Irish revival, ambient musicians, noise musicians, some punk and early hardcore, the early doom metal bands, etc which did, in fact, require that searching you claim wasn't necessary to find good music.

And that was before you had the Internet to make finding things easier.

Honestly like Childish Gambino or Chance the Rapper or Ky-Mani Marley or Lady Gaga or Ed Sheeran or whatever is way more enjoyable to me than any of that "good music" that you claim was everywhere back then. You're just nostalgic for the junk you grew up with.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#31
Quote by Hellphire
yeah we have ppl like ed sheeran who is killing it on guitar. i cant wait to learn guitar.


Yeah? What kind of junk do you listen to? How many young people took up guitar in the last year because of any of them? How many because of Ed Sheeran? I'll give you a hint: the latter is probably a digit or four higher than the former. People like Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift are the ones that are inspiring young people to pick up guitar (and therefore keeping the instrument alive) whether you like it or not. Not whatever guys you listen to.

Besides, I doubt you have actually listened to Ed Sheeran beyond snippets of his radio hits. He's got a lot more stuff and he's a talented guy and probably sings better than whoever you listen to. Besides, since when does being some sort of guitar wizard even matter? There's more to music than "killing it" on guitar, contrary to what most guitarists think.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#33
The only good thing Ed Sheeran ever did was when he played some Extreme at the Grammys
#34
(At the risk of you all pointing and laughing, I'll admit to having no idea whatsoever who Ed Sheeran is or what he/she/they does/do.)

Anyhooo . . . 

Because most of us are unable to time-travel, we're stuck without a reference for learning music in that many other eras. And, let's face it, for this discussion there is really only pre-internet and internet.

Once upon a time, one's resources were the sum total of what they learned from other musicians or figured out themselves. It remained that way for centuries. More recently one's music collection was a hundred vinyl LPs and a department store turntable. Now one's resources are every damn thing ever recorded, available effectively for free, in a format that allows the user to stop and start and repeat at any given point they wish. Sheet music, tab, instructional videos, are all available at a click. If I want the sheet music for a song written by Hoagy Carmichael in 1930, I can have it in seconds now whereas, once upon a time, it was unthinkable that I'd ever actually see one.

I'll vote "yes" to the thread's question. Quite so. When I was a kid, I was an 8-year old with a guitar and nothing else. No teacher, no crappy beginners book, nothing. 43-years later the seemingly endless resources continue to astound me.

It is remarkably easy to find instruments and gear now. You no longer have to inherit, manufacture, find or steal a lute. Online auction sites and retailers make everything available. Amazon Prime delivers guitar strings to my mail box within 24-hours of ordering them. Heck, even Craigslist here in YVR has hundreds of guitars listed, of every fashion.

As a kid, I used to dream about being able to record myself as a learning tool for monitoring my progress, but there simply was no feasible way for me to do so. Today I can record myself by tapping an icon on my smart phone.

Yep. I'll take "now", thanks.
“High fly ball into right field. She is… gone!" - Vin Scully
Last edited by Standard_A440 at May 7, 2017,
#35
Quote by theogonia777
People like Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift are the ones that are inspiring young people to pick up guitar (and therefore keeping the instrument alive) whether you like it or not. Not whatever guys you listen to.

Besides, since when does being some sort of guitar wizard even matter? There's more to music than "killing it" on guitar, contrary to what most guitarists think.

I agree. Here's a good video on the topic.

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
#36
Standard_A440, Ed Sheeran is the redhead here who plays guitar


Solid songwriter, and it's not just about technical prowess - it's about the song ultimately, or the album in the eyes of AOR or concept albums.

re: Taylor Swift - tbf, I'm pretty sure her last album was a pop album more than the country pop of her first few albums, so there's no real guarantee that whatever she's working on right now is back to more guitar. There are still country pop/rock/whatever blended genre you want to put around, though, like Hunter Hayes:
#37
Young girls are learning guitar because of Taylor Swift regardless of whether or not she is playing guitar on her latest singles or what kind of music they are or whatever.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#38
Fair enough, I guess UG does cater to adapting X instrument(s) to guitar/uke too.

I'd also argue that the wide range of music leads to greater diversity of inspirational figures, and that, combined with the relatively inexpensive nature of instruments (mass-production, used, electronics vs acoustic pianos, etc) and greater acceptance of women and other music styles in music society, leads to greater potential range of prospective students.

Just thinking about other female guitarists who come to mind



#39
NeoMvsEu

And Kaki King, St. Vincent, Orianthi, Rosalie Cunningham, Alison Mosshart, etc. The girls are bringin' it.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#40
Good female guitarists are nothing new off the top of my head I'd point to Bonnie Raitt, Nancy Wilson (Heart), Lita Ford, Jennifer Batten and for power chords and popularity how about Joan Jett. Take a look at Les Paul and Mary Ford live videos from the 50's. Mary could keep up with Les pretty well often doing a harmony lead to Les's playing.. 
 
From Les Paul's auto biography "In His Own Words":   "I only had to show her how to do it one time. She learned quickly and never forgot anything and she had a great sense of rhythm. She played just excellent, solid rhythm which was a very important part of our sound. Lead players are everywhere but good rhythm players are rare." 

Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at May 8, 2017,
Page 1 of 2