Page 1 of 2
#1
Ive been teaching my self for 8 months now.
At a stage i can play Entersandman Solo as my highpoint.

But now i want to start learning techniques like scales and lick etc.

Where do i go to start all this work and what do i do.

And basically from where i am how to i get way better.

Please help me
#2
My sig.

Those links have been put in my sig because they are so useful.

Feel free to ask questions, and you will have them, but ask a question; "I don't get this," doesn't help us answer your question at all.
#3
Sweet. And but learning this stuff, would it make it easier for me to get a tab for a solo like no remorse and be able to get it/ learn it faster.
#4
Quote by KTHXBAI
Ive been teaching my self for 8 months now.
At a stage i can play Entersandman Solo as my highpoint.

But now i want to start learning techniques like scales and lick etc.

Where do i go to start all this work and what do i do.

And basically from where i am how to i get way better.

Please help me


How many songs can you play? can you play them all the way through, or just the main riff?

I would suggest:

1) build up a repertoire of songs (never stop doing this, no matter what else you are working on )

2) learn to read music. (get yourself through at least 2 or 3 levels of a method book)


then...

3) look into some very basic theory, and work through it one step at a time.


My guess is that right now it may be a bit premature for you to start studying theory. I would suggest that you get some more basic playing & reading experience in so you have some music to relate the theory to, and some basic music knowledge to build upon (like being able to read notes and being familiar with things like sharps and flats and key signatures).
shred is gaudy music
#6
Quote by KTHXBAI
The whole entersandman riff including solo.
Plus all of in side the fire by disturbed.

And heaps of other metallica riffs.



cool! Keep at that.

Can you read music?

if not, you should know that reading music is an important part of preparing to study theory. For one thing, standard notation is the language that theory is taught in. Also you learn all the basic elements of music. This type of preparation can really make a difference in how well you comprehend music theory, and music in general. I would highly recommend taking this step 1st.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 13, 2008,
#7
Its never premature for you to learn theory.. theres an awesome book i found earlier this year
Theory For The Contempory Guitarist.
AWESOME! get that book, i think its a Guy Capuzzo one.
#8
THanks everyone. I learn some E scales today.
I can get my head around Scales.

But modes no.

"People often ask, "What are modes, and how do I use them?" A lot of the answers people give don't fully explain either part of this. So what is a mode? There are two ways to look at modes, mostly defined by how you're using them. First, a mode can be a scale played with a different starting degree. If we play the notes of the C major scale, starting and ending at D instead of C (D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D) we get the dorian mode; we'll see how this works later when we see how modes are applied in key. Second, we can view a mode as a unique scale. The major scale has the root, the major 2nd, maj 3rd, perfect 4th, perfect 5th, maj 6th, maj 7th, and octave. If we look at D dorian above, we can see that it has a minor 3rd and minor 7th (F, instead of F#, and C instead of C#, respectively). This gives us a distinct scale to work from."

Can someone explain what the bolds mean. Do i need to get the image of the C major sacle??
#9
Just forget modes for the time being, they're not relevant so early on - you can come to those later after you've learned some more basic theory.

Read the Crusade articles by Josh Urban in the columns section, they'll get you started on the right track.
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
#10
C major scale, starting and ending at D instead of C (D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D) we get the dorian mode;
Go from D to D without any sharps our flats (as in a C major scale) and see how it sounds. Using D dorian means you are putting a lot more emphasis on D and it's fifth, A.

When people talk about starting on D and playing a 'C major scale' its just an easier way of remembering the notes in a D dorian.

minor 3rd and minor 7th (F, instead of F#, and C instead of C#, respectively)
In a usual D major scale, there is an F# and a C#. Lowering these, causes them to change 'quality'. Instead of them being a 'Major Third' and a 'Major Seventh', they become 'minor thirds' and 'minor sevenths.' Lowering these notes (or changing the quality) also changes the scale.
If you were playing a D major scale without the lowered (flattened) third or the lowered seventh, it would be completely normal. Now that you have lowered it, it has changed the sound, style, use, and name of the scale.

Here is something to really freak you out

C Major starting on C : C Ionian Mode (just a fancy name for C major)
C Major starting on D : D Dorian Mode
C Major starting on E : E Phrygian Mode
C Major starting on F : F Lydian Mode
C Major starting on G : G Mixolydian Mode
C Major starting on A : A Aeolian Mode (just a fancy name for A minor)
C Major starting on B : B Locrian Mode

There is also a heap of formulas you could memorise to help you figure out different modes, but most people find it easier to just do the above.
#11
^TS: Ignore this.

Modes are determined by the harmonic context, not the note you start on. The order in which you play the notes is irrelevant. Either way, modes aren't something you should worry about until you're familiar with the major scale and the theory behind it.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#12
Quote by Archeo Avis
^TS: Ignore this.

Archeo, that's out of order mate. mdwallin has put a significant amount of effort in to that post to help the TS. The TS can use that as a good basis and starting point for learning the scales and how they interlink.

Just cuz you've gained a significant amount of respect in these forums doesn't give you the right to tell ppl to ignore this that and the other.
Last edited by mdc at Sep 15, 2008,
#13
Quote by mdwallin


C Major starting on C : C Ionian Mode (just a fancy name for C major)
C Major starting on D : D Dorian Mode
C Major starting on E : E Phrygian Mode
C Major starting on F : F Lydian Mode
C Major starting on G : G Mixolydian Mode
C Major starting on A : A Aeolian Mode (just a fancy name for A minor)
C Major starting on B : B Locrian Mode



+1 knowing the modes as they relate to the Major scale is a good place to start. Just keep in mind that while all those modes are related to the Major scale, they are in fact different scales in their own right, each with their own unique formula and sound.

When it comes to applications its good to understand them by "scale type". For instance the dorian modal scale is a minor scale type (its a minor scale with a raised 6th).

modes & scale types:

Ionian = the Major scale
dorian = minor scale with a raised 6th (natural since its normally flat)
phrygian = minor scale with a b2
lydian = Major scale with a #4 (functions as #11)
mixolydian = major scale with a b7 (sometimes refered to as the dominant scale)
aeolian = the minor scale
locrian = minor scale with a b2 and b5 (note... this works over half diminished...not minor)


Quote by mdc
Archeo, that's out of order mate. mdwallin has put a significant amount of effort in to that post to help the TS. The TS can use that as a good basis and starting point for learning the scales and how they interlink.

Just cuz you've gained a significant amount of respect in these forums doesn't give you the right to tell ppl to ignore this that and the other.


+1
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 15, 2008,
#14
I'm siding with Arch. It's important to know that D Dorian has the same notes as the C major scale, but simply starting your lick/pattern/fingering/box/shape/position on a D note doesn't always denote D Dorian. That is determined by the harmonic context. "D Dorian" over a C major progression is just the C major scale.
#16
Quote by bangoodcharlote
I'm siding with Arch. It's important to know that D Dorian has the same notes as the C major scale, but simply starting your lick/pattern/fingering/box/shape/position on a D note doesn't always denote D Dorian. That is determined by the harmonic context. "D Dorian" over a C major progression is just the C major scale.


on its own it does.

D E F G A B C (D) = D dorian (harmonic context is not required)


nobody mentioned anything about playing it in an inappropriate context such as over a C Major progression.

It was listen on its own, and was correct as stated.

anyway the TS has been playing for 8 months, and self taught. This argument isn't even worthwhile because he doesn't have the background to understand it.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 15, 2008,
#17
Quote by GuitarMunky
on its own it does.

D E F G A B C (D) = D dorian (harmonic context is not required)
Without the proper harmonic context, it wants to resolve to C, not D.
#18
Quote by bangoodcharlote
Without the proper harmonic context, it wants to resolve to C, not D.


If it were a melody.........it resolves where the composer resolves it. Modal melodies can stand on their own, without accompaniment, and retain their modal quality. Its not a melody though, its just a scale, so resolution and harmonic context are not issues.

its in application that harmonic context is relevant, not in defining scales. (modal or otherwise).
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 15, 2008,
#19
BGC I'm curious. How many people have PM'ed you sayin "uh I'm looking at the lyrics for For Whom The Bell Tolls in my Ride sleeve and that line isn't in there"?
#20
Quote by GuitarMunky
Now if someone had implied that playing D dorian was appropriate over a C major progression...... then Im on your side in saying its not appropriate. But scales, modal or otherwise, do exist and can be defined without harmonic context.
This I agree with. Can we agree, though, that the box-pattern method for learning modes is not the best way to learn?

It's actually how I learned them, but once I started learning more about theory, I realized that everything existed all over the neck, not just one pattern.

Quote by CowboyUp
BGC I'm curious. How many people have PM'ed you sayin "uh I'm looking at the lyrics for For Whom The Bell Tolls in my Ride sleeve and that line isn't in there"?
None verbatim, but three or four have PMed me with similar comments.
#22
Quote by bangoodcharlote
This I agree with. Can we agree, though, that the box-pattern method for learning modes is not the best way to learn?

It's actually how I learned them, but once I started learning more about theory, I realized that everything existed all over the neck, not just one pattern.

None verbatim, but three or four have PMed me with similar comments.


there is absolutely nothing wrong with learning the patterns on the neck (and there is ALOT to be gained by knowing them). I wouldn't give it any negative connotation whatsoever (such as "not the best way to learn"). They are just 1 thing of many to learn.... period.

btw.... the fact that D E F G A B C (D) = D dorian really has nothing to do with box shapes.
it's D dorian on paper, its D dorian on other instruments.... its D dorian ... .period.

the anti box shapes crusade, is really more of a charade.

- knowing the box shapes are a benefit to those that choose to study theory, not a hinderance.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 15, 2008,
#23
Thing is, your anti-anti box shapes bee in your bonnet is even worse.

Box shapes are meaningless on their own ie they have no meaning. If you don't know what they represent then they have limited use and you'll struggle to apply them. That's not an opinion, that's the facts...if you just learn boxes with absolutely no underlying theory then you have no understanding of what you're doing and never will. Even the simple act of learning the notes on the fretboard and matching them up with the scale patterns counts as theory in my eyes. Every player uses box shapes, but they're for using and applying the scale, not learning it.

Nobody's arguing that you can't learn them on their own, or do things with them...however it's plain daft to butt up against people for advocating learning things the right way.
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
Last edited by steven seagull at Sep 15, 2008,
#24
Quote by steven seagull
Thing is, your anti-anti box shapes bee in your bonnet is even worse.

Box shapes are meaningless on their own ie they have no meaning. If you don't know what they represent then they have limited use and you'll struggle to apply them. That's not an opinion, that's the facts...if you just learn boxes with absolutely no underlying theory then you have no understanding of what you're doing and never will. Even the simple act of learning the notes on the fretboard and matching them up with the scale patterns counts as theory in my eyes. Every player uses box shapes, but they're for using and applying the scale, not learning it.

Nobody's arguing that you can't learn them on their own, or do things with them...however it's plain daft to butt up against people for advocatiing learning things the right way.


the right way ??? gimme a break dude.

giving any sort of negative connotation to learning box scales (or any shape on the neck) is foolish and misleading to those unfortunate enough to read your advice. Your assertion that box shapes on their own are "meaningless" is utter garbage. and yes that is your opinion, not a fact. I know plenty of players that use box shapes (and their ears/brains) that are amazing. If you can't play anything without theory, then your not listening.

box shapes, theory, history ..ect. are all useful. knocking one because you've just learned that there is more out there is pure noobery.

IT"S ALL GOOD.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 15, 2008,
#25
You really don't read anything do you? You only what you you want to see in other posts.
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
#26
Quote by steven seagull
You really don't read anything do you? You only what you you want to see in other posts.


why did I misunderstand something ??

I read it quite thoroughly and its seems to me that you and the rest of the anti-box shape crusaders have this notion that learning box shapes is mutually exclusive from learning theory. Nobody said anything like "learn box shapes dude... forget about theory"..

What you have to realize is that knowing one doesn't prevent you from learning the other. if anything it reinforces it.

Some people may learn 1 before the other, or a little of both at the same time. The "right" way to learn varies from person to person depending on their musical goals.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 15, 2008,
#27
its seems to me that you and the rest of the anti-box shape crusaders have this notion that learning box shapes is mutually exclusive from learning theory.


No one, anywhere, ever said anything remotely similar to that. Where are you getting this?
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#28
Quote by Archeo Avis
No one, anywhere, ever said anything remotely similar to that. Where are you getting this?


its been implied many times. If you don't think learning box shapes is mutually exclusive from learning theory you should never have a reason to refer to learning box shapes as "bad", or "wrong" or in any way that would dissuade someone from learning them.
shred is gaudy music
#29
Quote by GuitarMunky
its been implied many times. If you don't think learning box shapes is mutually exclusive from learning theory you should never have a reason to refer to learning box shapes as "bad", or "wrong" or in any way that would dissuade someone from learning them.


Do you even read people's posts before you respond to them?
You're making shit up.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#30
Quote by Archeo Avis
Do you even read people's posts before you respond to them?
You're making shit up.


No I'm not. Why don't you read them? I already did.

When someone says learning box scales is the "wrong way" and learning theory is the "right way"...... doesn't that put learning box scales in a negative light? I would say it does.
There is no need for that. Its helpful to no-one.
shred is gaudy music
#31
I used to only know box shapes, and I will be the first to admit it definitely limits you as a player.
#32
Quote by JA91
I used to only know box shapes, and I will be the first to admit it definitely limits you as a player.


they dont limit you. You limit you.

and you decided to move on and learn more right? good for you. Did knowing those box shapes make learning new things any harder ?
shred is gaudy music
#33
Quote by GuitarMunky
they dont limit you. You limit you.

and you decided to move on and learn more right? good for you. Did knowing those box shapes make learning new things any harder ?


Yes, you do limit yourself.

And just learning box shapes is a way in which you can limit yourself.
#34
Quote by GuitarMunky
No I'm not. Why don't you read them? I already did.

When someone says learning box scales is the "wrong way" and learning theory is the "right way"...... doesn't that put learning box scales in a negative light? I would say it does.
There is no need for that. Its helpful to no-one.


*sigh*

It has been explained to you countless times, but I'm going to spell it out for you once more. What we take issue with is people attempting to reduce complex, theoretical concepts to box shapes. Learning box shapes is fine, believing that scales and modes are box shapes, and that you're changing keys or modes just because you've moved up the fretboard, is not. Anyone with cognitive ability above a household appliance can understand the difference between "don't learn box shapes" and "learn box shapes if it makes it easier for you, but make sure that you understand they're just an emergent property of the guitar's design, and understand the concepts that they represent"
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#35
Quote by JA91
Yes, you do limit yourself.

And just learning box shapes is a way in which you can limit yourself.


just learning any one thing, and not learning anything else is a way to limit yourself. There is no reason to single box scales out in that regard.

Quote by Archeo Avis
*sigh*

It has been explained to you countless times, but I'm going to spell it out for you once more. What we take issue with is people attempting to reduce complex, theoretical concepts to box shapes. Learning box shapes is fine, believing that scales and modes are box shapes, and that you're changing keys or modes just because you've moved up the fretboard, is not. Anyone with cognitive ability above a household appliance can understand the difference between "don't learn box shapes" and "learn box shapes if it makes it easier for you, but make sure that you understand they're just an emergent property of the guitar's design, and understand the concepts that they represent"


It seems to me that you take issue with anyone that mentions modes period. No one is trying to reduce complex theoretical concepts as you would have to understand that complex concept in order to reduce it. What's happening is that people get to that 1st step in understanding modes where they learn the relationship of each mode to the Major scale. They explain modes on the very little experience that they do have with them. Rather than telling people to ignore their post, you could just add your own view without insulting them. That way there are two helpful posts instead of 1 long pointless argument.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Sep 15, 2008,
#36
There should be an arguing about modes thread. It seems like I spend more time arguing about them then teaching them.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#37
Quote by The_Sophist
There should be an arguing about modes thread. It seems like I spend more time arguing about them then teaching them.



I disagree !!
shred is gaudy music
#38
About which part?
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#39
Quote by The_Sophist
About which part?


LOL... none of it. I was just messing with ya.
shred is gaudy music
#40
How dare you, I challenge you to a duel.

Wow, I don't think I've made one serious post today.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
Page 1 of 2