Quote by Xiaoxi
The next envelope/breakthrough would be if GuitarMunky developed a sense of humor.

Quote by MapOfYourHead
I don't think you know what a troll is

actually I do

Quote by MapOfYourHead

Microtonailty can be achieved with a standard guitar.

Is that what you do? play microtonally on your standard guitar? I'm not saying you can't, but I would like to hear a sample of you doing that.
Quote by MapOfYourHead

In your quote you'll notice that I did not say that there is "no envelope for microtonality to push" (your wording), but rather that microtonality is not an envelope to push. I say this because I'm talking about guitar playing, and while there are "microtonal guitars", I consider that a different instrument.

Certainly microtonal guitars, and microtonal music could become more popular, but it's not what I'm talking about. Could be another thread though.

Quote by MapOfYourHead

But then who will point out its pointlessness?

Oh there was a point. 20 tigers got it.

do you think your the only troll on the internet?
Quote by MapOfYourHead
You implied it by saying there is no envelope for microtonaity to push, and then saying that "Though I'm sure some pretentious posers could compete over how microtonal they are."

I did not say that.

Quote by MapOfYourHead

If you don't want people to take it like that, then say what you actually mean.

I did, just learn to read and comprehend.

Quote by MapOfYourHead

Maybe making threads based solely on guitarist's measuring themselves, under the guise of "pushing-envelopes", is counter-productive that, no....or?


You have the choice to not post in threads that you think are pointless.
Quote by MapOfYourHead
There's using it effectively, and abusing it effectively. Saying that composers can only compete over how microtonal they are is like saying guitarists can only compete by showing how fast they can play..

Where did I say "can only compete over how microtonal they are"?

Quote by MapOfYourHead

Microtonality is one of the last great forefronts yet to be merged with popular music in any consistent way. Bridging that gap is one of the hardest and most important envelopes you can push.

I appreciate your opinion.

Quote by jazz_rock_feel
So if I understand, by envelope you mean an aspect of guitar or guitar playing that can be quantified as a form of competition?


Quote by jazz_rock_feel

Because when I think of envelope I think of things like map and Duane said in microtonality or technology integration (or like adsr lol).

that's great, but you know it's not what I was talking about.

Quote by jazz_rock_feel

don't really get what you're talking about I guess. Like why it matters what the next method of measuring guitar dicks is.

It matters, because once people get over measuring themselves maybe they could do something else with music.
Quote by 20Tigers
You forgot more strings.

oh, I didn't forget. I just singled out a couple of things to make the point, but yeah more strings is part of it.

Quote by 20Tigers

Most of that stuff you mentioned is just guitarists trying to impress, or being impressed by each other rather than just making good music.

At least that's just my opinion.

I agree, and this was an answer I was hoping to see….

Quote by 20Tigers

So I guess my answer is I never cared for that stuff. Maybe we will have 10 string guitars in drop F diminished being played at 342 bpm. It just makes me cringe though. I hope guitarists get over all that and it doesn't go much further.

Me too, and my point is that eventually they would have to.

Quote by MapOfYourHead
microtonality is the future

Oh it could be I guess, though it isn't really an envelope to be pushed. Though I'm sure some pretentious posers could compete over how microtonal they are.

Quote by innovine
You forgot the cost envelope. Modelling rigs, like Line6 and AxeFX are pushing to provide the tone of many classic expensive rigs but at a reduced cost (and in a neatly integrated package).

They are also pushing the volume envelope. The low end of it, that is. The time of walls of 4x12 is gone, and now the modelling gear is trying to give the tone of loud, overdriven tubes but at headphones volume.

So there are volume, size and practicality envelopes being pushed, and pushed hard.

Na, I didn't forget it…. it's just not at all what I'm talking about, but it is a good topic for another thread.

I will say though, that modeling has come along way, but as a person that uses it regularly, I have to say that I still prefer the real thing. It still sounds noticeably and considerably better to me in most cases. Eventually that may change (maybe not though). I do feel like things will go more and more that direction whether I like it or not, so plan to hang on to all of my tube amps and analog pedals
Quote by Duaneclapdrix
Hi tech integration.

Quote by Sickz
I believe it is the instrument that will change somewhat in the coming future. We have already seen change in things that have to do with tuning stability and intonation of the instrument (such as the evertune bridge and true temperament frets), the sound processing with units just as the axe-fx 2 which has allowed us to be more versatile with our tones and imitate other instruments (like synth pads). I believe the next step is adding things to the guitar similar to what the synthaxe did when it was released in the 80's, different ways to produce sound from the guitar.

Off-topic, i hardly think guitarists pushed the envelope on any of those things.

I appreciate the responses, and tend to agree about the integration of technology becoming more prevalent.

What I was getting at is though is that it's become common for guitarists to be envelope pushers as a way to draw attention to themselves. Whether it's being flashier, faster, or tuning lower, there is a competition going on.

What I'm asking is do you think we can…..

Tune any lower (what are we at now like Drop Bb or A)?

Play any faster (then say Rusty Cooley or Yngwie, or whoever you think the fastest is) ?

Play any flashier (then say MAB shredding on 2 necks at once…. or whatever you think the flashiest playing is)

If your answer is yes…. how much further can those be pushed?

and when it is impossible to play faster, flashier or lower, or whatever other aspect a person decides to push….

what then for guitar?
Okay, so guitarists have pushed the speed envelope, the low tuning envelope, the techniques envelope, the complicated arrangement envelope, the dissonance envelope....

Whats next, or do you think these could be pushed even further?
Quote by deadsmileyface
good thing music isn't math at all huh guys

music isn't math, but music theory involves math.
Quote by Baby Joel
you are literally impossible

well I'm not going to try to redefine it or give him fodder for continuing his stupid argument that math is in no way involved in music. and It's not very hard to type math into google.

and btw so are you, and so is eastwinn, and practically everyone else here. Look at the threads with stupid arguments….. actually look at any thread here…. always ends the same. really stupid shit.
Quote by Eastwinn
one you agree with.

Quote by GuitarMunky
I think the standard definitions are fine.

This means I agree with any of the standard definitions you look up.

Quote by jazz_rock_feel
This physically hurts me.

Quote by Eastwinn
can you provide one of the standard definitions. one you agree with.

just google it dummy
Quote by Eastwinn
because i want to know what you think.

I think the standard definitions are fine.
Quote by Eastwinn
i will ask again. munky, what do you think math is? don't give me a dictionary definition, what do you personally think it is?

Why wouldn't you want a dictionary definition?

Because it differs from yours and you can't argue with it and tell it that it's wrong?
Quote by Baby Joel

yeah, it pretty funny that people over think so much as to deny the obvious
Quote by captainsnazz
exactly. it represents music.

and therefore the mathematic relationships within music
Quote by Elintasokas
Haven't you already noticed this forum is about overthinking and overanalyzing everything? (hello jazz_rock)

It can be pretty interesting to discuss these things, though.

yes I have, and sure sometimes they can. But sometimes it's just pretentious pseudo-intellection non-sense. And once in a while I get bored and feel like calling it out. Other times I try to help with honest advice, or partake in what seems like a worthwhile conversion and it ends up calling me out.

Quote by sickman411
I had 7 pistachios in a bowl, and then I ate 3 of them, and now there are 4.

Pistachios are maths guys!

If you had a habit of using math to calculate how many pistachios you have left, that habit would be one that could be said to "involve math".

Logic in place of over-thinking is good too.
Quote by Baby Joel
ok sure, but so what?

so he has no point

Quote by captainsnazz
I disagree
notation is not music

It represents music.

Quote by sickman411
But what I'm saying is that any music can exist without notation. Notation isn't an inherent quality of music.

again, it represents music, just like text on a page represents language.
It's also a set of directions in a sense. Do you think you could get an orchestra to play your piece without giving each member their parts in sheet music?

Simple common sense can often serve a person better than over thinking.
Quote by Declan87
I use a calculator a lot when I'm composing but its true I only use it to translate what's in my head onto the computer.

So what do you conclude based on that?
Quote by sickman411
"half note"
"4/4 time"
"a dot in front of a note"
"the value of the note"

These are all tools that we can use to describe music. They are not music.

^ incorrect, they are not describing tools. When written, they are more like text.
Quote by Eastwinn
okay. so can you either define mathematics as you see it or show how music involves my definition? your categorical statement is not altogether convincing.

How many beats does a half note get in 4/4 time?

In notation, a dot in front of a note (such as a dotted half or dotted quarter) changes the value of the note by how much?

Quote by deadsmileyface
yeah bud, hate to break it to you but dots on lines arent actually music. its just a bunch of dots on some lines. music is sound.

what you're breaking to me is that you're really ****ing stupid.
Quote by deadsmileyface
no dots on lines is math and dots on lines isnt music

What ??
Quote by Eastwinn
let me be clear. mathematics is a deductive pursuit based on forward assumptions. there are no deductions in music and there are no forward assumptions. it fails on both counts. i know you all like to justify your existence this way, saying "well music is basically math so i must be as smart as everyone thinks mathematicians are" but this is a terrible misrepresentation of both mathematics and music.

continuing, science is an inductive pursuit based on the systematic review of empirical evidence. music theory is not inductive and does not rely on any empirical evidence. it fails on both counts. i know you all like to justify your existence this way, saying "well music theory is basically science so i must be as smart as everyone thinks scientists are" but this is a terrible misrepresentation of both science and music.

if you do not understand either definition i give i will explain. if you try to claim music theory or your composition process or whatever fits either definition, you are beyond repair. i would never admit to playing guitar because it would group me with all.

Music involves math.
Quote by aerocom
I've been working with music for most of my life, I first picked up a guitar at the age of 6 or 7, and have been playing ever since. I just now figured out how to record and create music with FL Studio, and I've really had a recent liking for Pink Floyd (bought all their studio and live albums) and their music style. I've written a lot of music recently as a shadow of their work. I'm really trying to match their style, but only enough to still have my own. And by their style, I'm referring to their early stuff, specifically Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Saucerful of Secrets, Obscured By Clouds, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, and Dark Side. What I'm having trouble with is getting the ambient style they emit, and getting some nice sounds in FL. If there's a better program to use (still being pretty young, Sophomore in High School) that can bring that out, or if I should continue with FL and how I can improve that, that would be great. And my trouble with the composition is how to get the ambient style of their early works. Thanks so much

Looks like you need the book called "step by step instructions for sounding exactly like Pink Floyd"
Quote by Baby Joel
thing is there is no fact, or consensus about really anything in music.

sure there is. A whole note in 4/4 time = 4 beats. Nothing subjective about that.
A G chord contains the notes G,B,D…. plenty of consensus about that fact.

Quote by Baby Joel

To ascribe 'meaning' to music is to instantly objectify, which can't be done. So any meaning is pretty much purely on the listener's end, and for their purposes only.

How can the listener do what you say can't be done.
Quote by Eastwinn
it is part of a larger philosophy of art that others in this thread have made reference to, reference that you did not see. i am just resolving the reference for you.

I knew what they were referencing, and there's no need to be a dick.

If you have an opinion on it, like from your own mind, please share.
Quote by Eastwinn
for the uneducated swine among us:

That article is 1 persons opinion, not to be confused with fact, or even a wide consensus.
Quote by theogonia777
You mean like this?

I mean most threads/posts in MT, and yeah that qualifies.
Quote by jazz_rock_feel

You're the ****ing worst.

The truth isn't always pleasant.
Playing music/ listening to music….. excellent for the brain.

Being pretentious / engaging in pseudo-intellectual discussions/arguments = bad for the brain.
Quote by Baby Joel
It is affected by the composer, but I don't think it should be.

That makes the composer relevant, whether you think it should be or not.
Quote by Baby Joel
exactly this. The listener is the only person that is relevant to giving meaning to music.

I disagree.

I would say that the meaning perceived by the listener is affected by that of the composer.
Quote by Baby Joel
I would argue that both are irrelevant. The only 'relevant' person in music is the listener.

relevant to what?

Quote by steve_muse
lmao what a mong

^ what an asshole
Quote by Baby Joel
just to clarify, you are saying that the "death of the author" mindset is invalid because the author is essentially in the music?

Or are you making a joke?

Or am I just missing something ;_;

I'm saying that the "death of the author" mindset as you described it, is invalid because without the author the listener has no music to interpret.
Quote by Baby Joel
I'm a huge subscriber to the 'death of the author' mentality, so music is entirely dependant on the listener and what s/he wants to make of it.

What music? If the author is dead the listener has nothing to make of.
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
What is meaning in music?

What does music mean?

Are those the same question?

Is symbolism in music the same as meaning in music?

Is meaning in music any more than the invention of an individual listener?

Can a composer impose meaning in music on a listener?

Is there meaning in music that crosses the boundaries of the individual and the boundaries of culture?

If there are commonalities between two cultures' musics does that mean those two cultures share commonalities of meaning in music?

Does meaning in music have to be universal to exist?

Does purpose of music imply meaning in music?

If a piece of music is religious is the meaning in that music religious?

If we remove a piece of music from the context in which it has purpose (e.g. a national anthem) does that music lose its purpose?

Does it lose its meaning?

Does there need to be meaning in music for it to have purpose?

Can music in which there is no meaning exist?

Can music in which there is no meaning be enjoyed?

Must a composer consider meaning in music?

Can meaning in music be abstract or must it always be literal?

Can meaning in music be technical or must it always be literal?

^ Personally, I see no benefit in over-thinking things in this way.
Quote by Patrickshortall
Hi everyone, I'm quite a noob to guitar theory and composition. And I've got a question on soloing over some chords, the chords are B F# A and E. I would like the use the pentatonic minor scale as it's the only one I'm comfortable with. What minor key would best fit, any advice is welcome.


assuming you mean all Major chords, these scales work…...

B minor pentatonic, B minor blues, B Major pentatonic, B Major blues

^ these you can play all the way through without having to adjust for the bVII chord

If you use the B major scale, you'll have to play the b7 over the A in place of the A#(7)
(or just think B Mixolydian scale over that chord)
They are both fantastic guitarists. It's not a competition
Quote by Gary120a21
Just some background information to show my perspective and that I can talk about either side of this debate.

Hi, guys. I'm Anthony. I am an avid 22 year old metalhead. I've been listen to metal of several sub genres almost exclusively since I was 6. I am also currently a entering graduate med school. I also play 4 instruments, classically trained. Despite the fact that I am passionate about playing metal music, I also approach things from a scientific standpoint.

This presents an interesting dichotomy.

The idea of Music Theory and Scientific Theory.

Scientific Theory goes under a peer reviewed system.

Music Theory isn't as concrete. This is due to the word Theory being misused in an everyday setting. However, it gave thought to the idea of Scientifically Supported Music Theory.

What do you guys think? Is it possible to have a Scientific Approach to Music Theory by means of objective supported studies or should a scientist step out of an artists box? Are these two personalities incompatible within the same person during musical creation?

Is Scientifically supported Music Theory is possible? Is it even useful from a scientific or musical standpoint?

Am I alone in these thoughts or are there others who thing within the same vein?

Discuss please. I've checked my post several times for errors for your convenience so I apologize for any errors that slipped in my post, I'm on my phone.

you mean like, you base your music on some scientific equation rather than listening and expressing?

You can certainly try if you feel that strongly about the idea. Personally I'd rather not.
Quote by Dave_Mc
^ Agreed

(a) You pretty strongly implied it.

no, that is your misunderstanding

Quote by Dave_Mc

(b) No, but if you at least try to be objective, and have people who are willing to compromise, that's going to have a better chance of a resolution than having someone's admittedly biased and admittedly negative opinion being taken for its definition.

its just an opinion, which is what the OP asked for. No compromise necessary, it is what it is.

Quote by Dave_Mc

Everyone is biased- absolutely. But some people are more biased than others. I admit I like (some) shred, but if I were thinking up a definition I'd at least try to be vaguely objective.

I don't believe the goal of this thread was to officially define shred.

Quote by Dave_Mc

(c) I never said I'd give an opinion.

if your going to argue against someone else's, you might as well do so by countering it with your own.

Quote by Dave_Mc

Much like when you offered your own opinion, and then implied that if anyone disagreed that that meant it was a pointless endeavour- you're sort of trying to take control of the whole narrative/situation, for advantage of your own opinion (i.e. this endeavour is pointless, which risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy).

opinions are what were asked for. The implications you drew from my opinion are incorrect.

Maybe you could say that "if anyone disagreed" we would disagree. That's about it though. I simply gave my opinion, I'm not asking anyone to change theirs, and I'm not trying to get my view published as the official definition of shred.

Quote by Dave_Mc

Nevertheless, I'll play, because I'll be accused of trying to have my cake and eat it too if I don't.

This is just off the top of my head (so I might change my mind later), but I'd generally say it's just (normally, though not necessarily exclusively) fast distorted electric guitar lead playing.

okay, thank you. Thats pretty vague, but certainly shred guitar if often distorted and fast.

Lets face it, the term can be used lots of ways. "that dude was really shredding"…. could be applied to alot of things these days. Doesn't even really have to be guitar.

To me though, when I hear the term "shred" I tie it to it's roots, and that is guitar oriented music which is blatantly, deliberately, and competetivly showy/flashy.

Quote by Dave_Mc

Basically what MaggaraMarine said. In fact before he posted, I was going to say that he's a pretty level-headed, objective guy and I like the cut of his jib, and I'd nearly have been willing to subscribe to his definition even before I read it, because I know he can at least try to be objective (and I could be wrong, but I don't think he's an out-and-out shred fanboy).

(d) see (b)

that's great, subscribe to what you want. It doesn't bother me, or change my opinion.


how about this for a positive spin on things.

We all know that some people love shred, and some hate it. Im pretty sure it will always be that way.

why not though, share some of the things you like about shred? that would be a positive way to counter my negative opinion.