Quote by willT08
The first one was when you made an appeal to stagnation

The second one was when you made a counter point to a point I never made

EDIT: And yeah the third one you pretended to not know what 'much' means

That's your take on it, but I disagree.

an appeal to NOT disregarding the past is not an appeal to stagnation.

as to your overall point, I disagree that the emergence of new approaches, makes older approaches irrelevant / not worth learning about. If that's not your point feel free to restate it.
Quote by willT08
Have you posted here before? If you have I'm sure that I would have pointed out where you've deliberately misread things to make silly points that are regressive anyway lol

What did I misread?

was it this?

Quote by willT08

It would appear to me that traditional theory and notation have ceased to be useful to the modern musician.

Or was it this?

Quote by willT08

Technology has made it such that music can be produced and reproduced in so many forms that any attempt to consider rules as even remotely universally applicable seems ridiculous.

or this

Quote by willT08

Theoretical systems of considering or notating harmony, rhythm, timbre etc are not viable ways of analyzing much of the modern world's music.

Quote by willT08

Seeing as these systems are now defunct at the borders of sound, why would anyone hold vehement positions about their use in the middle ground?

Not exactly sure what you mean by the "borders of sound" or "middle ground".

As far as vehement positions. Take a look at any thread here. They are practically all arguments by people holding vehement positions.
Quote by willT08
the omg not again was for guitarmunky

Yep again. You ignored it the 1st time. Sorry that it wasn't what you wanted to hear.
Quote by willT08

It would appear to me that traditional theory and notation have ceased to be useful to the modern musician.

Appearances can be deceiving. All you need to do though, is turn on the radio, and you'll find that modern musicians are making plenty of music that is rooted in traditional theory & notation.

Quote by willT08

Technology has made it such that music can be produced and reproduced in so many forms that any attempt to consider rules as even remotely universally applicable seems ridiculous.

Technology makes some things more convenient, and opens up sonic possibilities, but it doesn't' erase the relevance of the entire history of music up till today.

Quote by willT08

Pour example, one of my professors created a piece in which his holiday photos were mapped onto transparent spheres and then stills of these spheres were fed into a Max patch he'd created to transfer these images into sound phenomena. To attempt to make meaningful guidelines of composition in this piece would be a nonsense. In fact in many cases, such as this, the composition choices made do not consider the musical outcome whatsoever.

there are many ways to create music. One does not render the other obsolete.

For example the birth of atonality didn't stop people from listen to, or creating tonal music.

So your professors composition may indeed by un-analyzable, but that doesn't mean that all modern music is that way, or should be.

Quote by willT08

Theoretical systems of considering or notating harmony, rhythm, timbre etc are not viable ways of analyzing much of the modern world's music. Seeing as these systems are now defunct at the borders of sound, .

You're mistaken, they are not defunct, and are in fact a viable way to analyze much of the modern worlds music.

Quote by willT08

why would anyone hold vehement positions about their use in the middle ground?

it's simple: people like to argue. people like to tell other people they're wrong.

Quote by willT08

however the notion that the modern musician should have them as their primary source of musical knowledge is to encourage regressive musical practice.

Well, a modern musician can make music however they please, but having a firm grasp on the fundamentals is not regressive. If anything it would aid innovation, because you would have context.
Quote by willT08

Theoretical systems of considering or notating harmony, rhythm, timbre etc are not viable ways of analyzing much of the modern world's music. Seeing as these systems are now defunct at the borders of sound, why would anyone hold vehement positions about their use in the middle ground? To remember their relevance to musics of the past and to consider them when recreating these styles is important, however the notion that the modern musician should have them as their primary source of musical knowledge is to encourage regressive musical practice.

It's a mistake to think that "these systems are now defunct". Turn on a radio

Quote by willT08

why would anyone hold vehement positions about their use in the middle ground?

people like to argue

Quote by willT08

To remember their relevance to musics of the past and to consider them when recreating these styles is important, however the notion that the modern musician should have them as their primary source of musical knowledge is to encourage regressive musical practice

Most innovations develop from the ideas of previous generations.

A very common problem amongst modern musicians is that they often take themselves far too seriously.
Quote by 20Tigers
It's a matter of opinion.

I agree. A matter of opinion and perspective.

Quote by 20Tigers

In some respects I felt completely the opposite. I remember always feeling that there were a lot of posers. The bands of the time Poison, Skid Row, Def Leapord, Motley Crue, Whitesnake etc often had a few good songs but always felt to me somewhat like pretenders.

That's how I felt as well, though I see Guns N Roses in more or less the same light.

Quote by 20Tigers

Guns N Roses were the first band of that time I remember thinking were the real deal. They always sounded authentic to me.

On a few songs I felt that way, especially when compared to bands like Poison. But compared to the stuff from the 60's and 70's, I saw them as being artistically closer to Motley Crue then say, the Beatles.

For the most part they come across to me like a pair of store bought, pre-ripped jeans. (also popular in the 80's).

Quote by 20Tigers

They weren't really doing anything new but what they did do they did very well and they were true to themselves when they did it. At least that's how it felt to me when I was 9-10 years old and ever since.

I'll admit they had a somewhat unique, recognizable sound. Slash had 2 or 3 very nice solos (maybe a few more but I cant' think of them), and a couple of decent riffs.

I know when I was 9 or 10 I tended to like the music that the teenagers I looked up to listened to. Some of those early formed opinions stick with me today, though I've changed on a few of them.

I always hated what happened to rock/metal music in the 80's. I believe MTV was a big factor. More then ever before, Image became the top priority. In many cases you still had talented musicians, but overall the output was tainted by marketing considerations. The bands were sounding and looking more and more alike.
Bands that were unique and original in the 70's ended up conforming to the 80's and started sounding/looking like everyone else. I was pretty young, most people my age liked that stuff, but for the most part, I hated it.

So when people bring up the cultural impact of Guns and Roses, who I feel typify the 80's mentality, I might take the opportunity to vent my opinion. -
Quote by Arby911

And like any language, you can learn to speak it without learning how to read or write it.

^ + 1 Yes, you can

Quote by Killsocket

I kind of always viewed GNR, as good as they may be, as a bridge to Nirvana in "time space". Not that Nirvana was influenced by GNR, but GNR was the bridge from, say, acts like Poison to Nirvana. GNR wasn't as goofy or lame as those makeup, hairspray, spandex, wearing bands like Poison (sorry Poison fans, but you know visually you are lame if a short guy in long blonde hair and flannel can make you look even sillier than you already are).

IMO G n' R is a well marketed, mediocre band with a decent guitarist. By and large I see them as an "image" band, like most other 80's rock/metal bands. not completely devoid of talent, but nowhere near the level of the bands of the 60's and 70's, both in terms of musicianship and genuine artistry. The focus was more on image and marketing.

I don't see them as bridging any gaps. They came in during the 80's doing what pretty much everyone else was doing. What bands like Nirvana did was a reaction against the corporate rock and metal of the 80's.

I don't see Nirvana as being much better in terms of musicianship, but I feel it was alot more genuine as art.

In terms of cultural impact, I definitely noticed it much more with Nirvana.
Quote by RonaldPoe
Is my progression atonal? If not what key would you put it in? Also are there any scales that sound vaguely similar to the Xavian scale.

It's not even a progression. It's just random, mostly non-related chords, that are not in a specific key.

It seems like you're just looking for fancy words to attach to yourself/your music, in a vain attempt to be "unique".
In terms of cultural impact, Nirvana's music truly changed things, whereas Guns N Roses maintained the status quo.

Guns and Roses were very successfully marketed and became very popular, but they didn't really do anything new. They rode the corporate hair band wave, and more or less died with it as the Grunge storm came in and blew it away.
When I 1st heard smells like teen spirit I remember thinking "this is the 1st genuine sounding band I've heard in a very long time". I didn't even like it all that much, but It was a breath of fresh air in a stale sea of corporate posers.
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
I'm competitive and feel absolutely no guilt about it. I'm not only relieved when I realize I'm better than someone but am pretty proud of it. If I realize that someone is better than me or is further along in their development than I am I look at what they've done and try and see how I can become better than them. I don't want to just be better than other people, I want to be so much better that I render them irrelevant. jk. Kinda.

I also get viciously jealous of people that are better than me. The beauty part is, there's always someone better than me and these are the people I try to surround myself with.

From the standpoint of being a professional in any area of music, it is extremely competitive and very often literally a competition. A competition for jobs, a competition for money, a competition for contacts (or those contacts' business).

I honestly see no issue with viewing it as a competition.

Or, you know, I just do it to be happy. If that makes everyone feel better.

I do it because I enjoy it…. I don't really care if it makes anyone else feel better or not.

jealousy as a means of motivation is unnecesarry for me because I want to play anyway.
Quote by Guitarxor
The other day I watched a great video about playing melodies around arpeggios.

What struck me is that there seemed to be insanely many ways to play arpeggios. Of curiosity I calculated it.

Take a regular three note chord, for instance Cm7, consisting of the notes C-E-G-Bb.

This could be rearranged to inverted chords, so that E or G would be the lowest note instead of C. The number of possible combinations can be calculated by the expression

4! = faculty of four = 4*3*2*1 = 24

The number four is the number of notes in the actual chord.

If the guitar had an equal interval between each string we would be done here, but that isn't the case. If we consider standard tuning each of these six chord could be grabbed in three ways right?

Grip one = all with a 4th's (strings E-A-D-G)
Grip two = third on the last (strings A-D-G-B)
Grip three = third in the middle (strings D-G-B-E)

This means it seems we could do the same four note arpeggio in 4! * 3 = 24*3 = 72 ways.

A three note chord would be a bit more merciful, as it could be done in "only" 3! * 3 =3*2*1* 3 = 18 ways.

All this is provided that the lowest note is on the lowest string, because it probably wouldn't make sense to put the highest note on the lowest string and such. But if that is possible to, the number of possible combinations would be multiplied by a faculty of the number of notes again.

This could be dismissed as mathematical mambo-jambo not even worthy for the pit. But, the result could show once again that playing shouldn't be based on learning combinations by heart but rather by ear and rules.

A person who can regonize inverted chord by ear and/or know the intervals of it can soon do all 72 combinations without even thinking much about it, I believe. Learning these combinations by heart would be a waste I think. I however have met many people that sure can play, but they don't really have a clue about what they're doing when I ask. Is that a waste of talent that could be something more, or would higher levels of understandning not fit everybody in this area perhaps?

What do you guys think?

EDIT: When I mean number of ways and combinations, I mean number of grips that reasonably could be used when doing these arpeggios on a guitar with regular tuning.

It's best not to over-think things.

Quote by evhledzep5150
Competition. Music is not a competition, but sometimes I can't help but compare myself to other guitarists. Sometimes a sigh of relief that I have better technique than someone, or sometimes an alarm goes off inside of me when I hear someone superior and think "I need to practice more until I'm at least as good as they are!" (Happens a lot after watching guitarists on YouTube with perfect technique). It's not a massive concern of mine to be better than others persay, but if I found out some kid at my school played better than I did I would practice my ass off. :P I'm usually competitive with academics too though (typical asian). Does anyone else ever feel this way? Why do you think?

My motivation for playing music is based on the enjoyment I get from doing it. I don't feel the need or see the benefit in treating it as a competition. If I hear someone else play guitar really well, I usually enjoy it. I'm happy & inspired to have witnessed it, and I'm glad for that person. If I really like the music, I might learn it….. not to prove anything, not to compete, but simply because I think it will be fun.
Quote by cdgraves
No, that's not what I'm saying. The context makes it different functionally, and that context is what you can hear.

I agree with that.

Quote by cdgraves

If you mean to take issue with the standard definition provided in Music Theory textbooks, I think you need some counterexamples in which an A2 is used as a stable, consonant interval in a contrapuntal texture like a m3 would be.

I haven't heard that standard definition stated, but I don't think I'd disagree with it.
Quote by cdgraves
If you have the kind of ear training classical musicians get, you can spot when something is spelled A2 rather than m3 based on context alone.

this is where I disagree. You seem to be saying that it will sound different, based on it's spelling.
Quote by descara
Ah, well, certainly. But the two are so intertwined (function and notation) that it feels like a rather superfluous distinction to make.

regardless of how you feel, I chose to make that distinction.

Quote by descara

Yeah I'm not having much more luck myself haha. But here's a diminished octave (2:32, the starting note of the trill) because it's so damn sexy.

Notation aside, and just for fun I'm going to call it a #9 - b9 trill that resolved to the root of the chord.
Quote by descara
Well gee whiz. But we dont spell it that way, because of the context - spelling it as Gb would be inaccurate. Where're you going with this?

The point is, that spelling is a matter of notation/reading (&theory), but its not what makes something dissonant or consonant.

Regarding the spelling in this specific case it's a ******ation. Generally you keep the same note, and then resolve upward. It's alot easier to read if the note is spelled the same way, rather than going from F# to a Gb which would then require an additional accidental for the following G natural.

Quote by descara

Augmented 7ths I'm having trouble of recall for obvious reason - though I have seem to have the faintest memory of one, though I'm not sure and not sure if it was convincing if I'm actually remembering something.

I can't think of a way you could use it in which it doesn't sound like the octave that it is.
Quote by cdgraves
As far as counterpoint is concerned, dissonance/consonance doesn't apply to melodic intervals, only harmonic.

It's important to remember that those terms have very specific meanings when you're talking about counterpoint.

Yes, it's just not a black/white concept. The same sound can be dissonant in one context and consonant in another, as the examples posted above demonstrate. The resolution tendency is exactly why you'd use an A2 in certain places, rather than spelling it as a m3.

well I agree that the context affects how you hear the intervals in terms of consonance and dissonance. The spelling is a more a matter of notation/reading, and really doesn't affect the sound.

For example if you notated the F# as a Gb in this …...

it would still sound exactly the same. The note written as a Gb would still sound dissonant.

Also, I wonder if anyone can come up with an example of a piece that uses an Augmented 7th as a dissonance.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
The most common use of augmented 2nd is in harmonic minor scale (1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, 7). Melodic minor was "invented" to avoid the dissonant augmented 2nd between the b6 and 7 notes. It sounds smoother if your melody goes like 6-7-1 instead of b6-7-1.

I believe it was to avoid the leap. Not so much about the dissonance of the interval.

Quote by Unreal T
I am reading a textbook on theory and it mentions that all augmented intervals are dissonant including the Augmented second. How is this possible? The A2 is the same amount of half steps as a m3 and sound identical. If a m3 is considered an imperfect consonance, than how is the A2 considered dissonant?

How was this worded exactly, and in what context?
Quote by cdgraves
Because in counterpoint, dissonance isn't a sound. Dissonance is instability

instability in what? …….. sound perhaps?
Quote by Unreal T
I don't think that part was necessary.

I thought it was, which is why I posted it.
Quote by pks330
Okay so here is the scoop:

I am 25, been playing since I was 16, NEVER played with another human being EVER. I got my first guitar from the trash, it was a crappy "RokAXE" strat copy, I have never read tabs and I don't know how to, I don't know chords, I do not know anything AT ALL, I play what sounds good to MY ear, I don't even know if I am keeping in a correct rhythm. It really sucks to think that I wasted all 9 years of playing, I play every day for at least 30 mins on a busy day, and for hours and hours when I have time.

What I want to do:

Is make something I can do solo, I have an opportunity to get auditioned by a record label 99% because of who I know, and connections I have made. I am doing all of my own stuff solo, even though I cannot figure out how to get Cubase le5 to record, I have a FULL recording studio outfitted in my mobile home with 3 mics, 2 guitars, 1 Djembe, 4 Congas, 6 different styles of acoustic ranging from dobro to archtop.

I want to play music and have a full song, I do my own vocals, (I love my voice as I hear it in my head) But it comes out bad on cell phone recording, and I would swear someone else did it, because that is not how I sound at all in my head, maybe I really do not sound as good as I think. IDK,

I want to know what I should learn, I cannot afford to pay for music lessons, and a free lesson I took, the guy said "Play me your best stuff" and I did, and he said "MAN all you need is the ability to sweep and add variation to rhythm and you got it" But a broke person getting paid will say anything to get more $

I do have a guitar I do not want, that I am willing to sell for $250.00 with case, but I don't need the $, I think maybe I t would be worthwhile to trade it for lessons. But I don't know where to start, anyone offering lessons is asking $25.00 per hour so that is 10 1 hour lessons, I need to know what I should request to learn.

I really REALLLY need some honest advice, I hate working, I work in a factory for minimum wage because my 2 college degrees mean nothing. ALL I want to do is play music, if I make money I would be happy, I take my guitar to work everyday, and play all day at work on my breaks, I really do not care if I make it pro, I just need to express some rage I have built up from some bad situations I have encountered, and I do not know how to progress further, I feel like I am putting out 25% of what I can do, and I always am amazingly shy about my playing, in addition I don't even know what a metronome is besides a ticking sound, I never have had one, nor used one, for a fact I have never even touched one or seen one in person, it's like a mythical beast to me.

I hope that someone has had this issue before, I mean am I the only one who went completely nomad on guitar and did their own thing, never reading a book, or looking up any tutorial? Please help me, as I really need this, I do not need it for fame or money, I need it to keep my sanity, I need it to feel complete, I feel like I am alone in the world and no one loves me except my own music, I feel so complete and full when I play, like time doesn't exist, like the world could **** off (Excuse vulgarity) while I play, Time passes so fast when I play, But I find that I am being repetitive on what I like to play, I keep to the same area on the guitar (Specifically around 7-14th notation bars or frets or w/e)

I would like to try out for this 3 song demo thing I have an opportunity to do, but I am so scared that I am not any good, and I suck. I mean I love what I play, and I could care less if anyone else likes it, but let's be realistic, I work in a HEAVY labour factory, and by the time I get home from making little to no money, just enough to get by! I am so tired I can barely play anything, I really would love to just make one thing that sounds nice, and do it all solo, like drums, and vocals, and guitar, and w/e instrument I can add. I have never played anything I cannot make sound good to ME. IDK if others think so, but I do. Maybe I am in love with myself, and that's why I like what I play,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help me with anything you can, do not let me rot away in a factory playing the same sound over and over, I need help, and I need to be able to let it ALL out, not just some, Sometimes I get really freaking mad, and want to slam my guitar on the ground because I cannot make it sound like what I feel....... I may have anger problems, but I want to make them constructive instead of destructive, I have been blessed with a REAL nice assortment of instruments, from friends, and family who have invested in me. I feel ashamed I am not better, I mean I am utterly depressed because I feel I am not even up to par with a basic rhythm, although I don't even know what that is.

I am rambling a lot, because I don't know how to explain what is wrong, and what I want to do, if you had this problem, please please share with me, please help me. I am in desperate need of guidance!

thank you very much for bearing through this tedious I am sure post. I appreciate any advice.


I hate it when people say "DUDE LEARN SCALES OR CHORDS" I need more info, I need your story, I need your info on how you came to be what you are, I do not need basic directions, I need something I can relate to, I need someone who understands what is wrong with what I am doing, and can say "Hey dude, I know exactly how you feel, and this is how I was able to get through it"

Please keep trolling to a minimum, because it just hurts me, and makes me feel singled out, like I am the only one like this..... IDK maybe I am.

Your money would be better spent on a psychiatrist.

Once you sort that out, use common sense……

Don't expect random dudes that are not successful musicians to solve your personal problems by arguing with each other online.
Quote by flashbandit
There are tons that point to a note and say "what is it??" but I'm looking for something that will really help me read sheet music. The basic idea is like guitar hero but where the notes are on a staff.

staff notes scroll by and you have to keep up by selecting the appropriate note on a fretboard within a range of frets (so you're selecting the notes you'd actually play, not just choosing the same G# over and over since you don't know where others are.) I think having it gamified like this would help keep attention and increase learning.

staff notes scroll by, and you have to play them on your actual guitar. A mic picks it up and determines if you were right. There's an honors system of playing within the right box of frets.

use the Brain app in your head.

get books with standard notation / sheet music. Read/play on a regular basis

it works! no updates necessary.
Quote by koH_34
Hi everyone

I'm from Switzerland and currently have to write some kind of graduation paper about a random topic of my choice. Recently it occured to me that there was radio coming out of my amplifier while playing the bass, so I chose to investigate this phenomenon a bit closer. My theory is that either my strings or my cable work as an antenna. I was wondering if any of you guys have experienced the same.
Any replies would be greatly appreciated!

This happens to me when I use my Big Muff. I'm not exactly sure why or how to fix it but it does seem to act as an antenna. In my situation it picks up the same station every time, so it seems to be dialed into a particular frequency.

what kind of stuff comes through your amp? My station broadcasts radical extreme religious talk. Pretty scary
Quote by RonaldPoe
I was listening to Radiohead's classic, "Paranoid Android", and I wondered what key/scale/tonality the outro/end solo is in. I've been searching Google and Youtube for at least an hour about it. The solo is one of the most alien and bizarre sounding solos out there (like Hendrix's "Star Spangled Banner" or something Meshuggah or Buckethead would do on an off-day). It sounds atonal but not. Don't just say "use pitch shifter", I'm looking for the theory of it to adapt to my own playing. I'd be thankful for some polite answers.

Radiohead's Paranoid Android

sounds like he's using the Triple Lindy scale, with some confrigulated rhythm patterns, and paramodulating harmonies.
Quote by RonaldPoe
I know some of you find me annoying but I have a question. You know I'm a Metal head but I decided to take up Jazz guitar. The style and I share a few common goals and interests (tons of theory, scales, improvisation, and overall complexity). I also like to play my guitar bass-style and don't care for big chords. I also believe Metal and Jazz are more similar than you'd think.

Do you guys have any suggestions for a beginner starting Jazz guitar? Are there any arpeggios I should learn? What standards have easy melodies? Where can I learn to improvise better? What about that "swing"?

Also I haven't given up on my tonal experiments, I just put them on hold. When my next one is ready (this one will sound better and perhaps have a new tonality), I will be posting it here. I don't want the obvious and unhelpful advice like "Learn theory", "Learn and analyze some songs", ect. Have a nice day!

Start by listening to it. Get familiar with the tunes. Develop a genuine appreciation for the genre.

When you're ready for it, get a real book….. learn lots of tunes.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
I don't know where you can find them

that should tell you something.

but I disagree with sweep being only used for showing off your speed. It's another technique that is really handy for playing arpeggios at any speed.

it's really not. They are great for playing fast, which is how and why people use them. People don't tend to use them for slower passages. You could for the sake of argument, but you couldn't play as articulate as you could with alternate picking.

Quote by MaggaraMarine

It is true that sweeping is mostly used for playing fast arpeggios. But that's because it's not that hard to play fast arpeggios if you can sweep.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying.

Quote by MaggaraMarine

This is not that fast (it's 16th notes at c 120bpm). It's not how sweeping is typically used. I'm not saying the solo isn't hard to play but it doesn't sound like your typical nintendo sweeping.

(The solo starts at 3:27)

it's not that fast, but it's fast enough where sweeps work out. and I would say that it is still showing off. Honestly that's the whole point of that genre. That's what people find appealing about it whether they realize it or not.
Quote by Hail

lots of nobuo's stuff uses arpeggios liberally that can be reinterpreted on a guitar for sweeping

I said sweep arpeggios, not just arpeggios.

Even if you can hunt down a legitimate piece of music that features slow sweeps, It won't change what I said.
Quote by flaaash
Every way I look at doing Gmaj7#11 - it looks awkward as heck.

I really should expand my comfort zone more often.

just flat the 5th of a GMaj7 chord. (b5 = #4 = #11)

R, 7, 3, #11 will get ya there.
Quote by tyawesome1
who thinks Adrian Vandenberg and john norum are good yet for some reasontheyre not the "I wanna be them when I grow up guitarists"?

Those guys are decent players but they get lost in the generic crowd of hair guitarists.
Quote by AccountAttempt4
Hey, I've been doing some sweep picking in eighth notes. I started at 120 bpm and have worked my way up one bpm per day - I'm at 147 bpm now. I don't really listen to a lot of music that features sweeping so I was wondering... What are some kinda slow sweep picking riffs or solos? I just want some sort of goal that I can try and reach 'cos at the moment I'm just slowly building up the speed without any objective other than to get faster.

Well the main reason, if not the sole reason for playing sweep arpeggios is to show off how fast you can play so aside from videos that slowly show you how to sweep, it will be hard to find examples of sweep arpeggios played slowly.
Quote by evhledzep5150
It's somewhat "jazzy" and has a descending baseline. I can't figure out how to resolve it because I have no idea what's going on in terms of theory. Sorry in advance because I don't use tabs much and try to play by ear when I can help it, so it might not be brilliantly tabbed out. I'm not even going to include the rhythm I came up with, just the chords. It's literally the same two switching off. The gist of it goes like this so far:


The chords aren't actually played that fast lol, I just put them close together to save time. The pattern could probably continue but I want to be able to resolve this to A. Or at least some other stable key that would make sense. So what's going on there? Thanks!

you're moving 2 chord shapes down the neck chromatically. It's not a chord progression, and it's not in a key, so resolve anywhere that sounds good to you.
Quote by tyawesome1
what picks besides jazz picks are good for alternate picking?

standard picks work great for alternate picking.

something like..

Quote by HERMEC
Well I've been playing guitar my whole life. I'm 20 and I've gone to bed with 3 women but they were only one night stands. As far as socializing with women I am terrible. I mainly play bluesy bass now but I'm terrible at talking to women. Granted once I catch one I always reel her in but as far as talking to women I stink
(Invalid img)

I once had this girl with half her teeth missing hit on me at a gig. I was like "man this is why I play guitar!!! "
Quote by bassalloverthe
Really? I think its a cop out.

Like telling someone to simply give up desire in order to be happy. Sort of a non statement that doesnt have any effect on tangible skills

It's more like telling someone to use common sense. (sadly, it's often needed around here)

The point being that if you love playing, you'll play alot. if you play alot you get better. It's simple really. You don't give up desire, you feed on it.

This is different than constantly comparing yourself to others for motivation. It's different than always being hard on yourself, telling yourself that you suck in order to force yourself to practice more.
If you love playing, you don't need that kind of negative motivation. You'll practice alot simply because you WANT to, because you enjoy it.
Quote by Sean0913
I just got pranked...

Well played!



Quote by cjohnson122989
I agreed with some of your post, but not this line. Some people are always driven to learn more - and this is a very positive force.

being driven to learn more, and not being satisfied with your playing are 2 different things.

You can be completely satisfied with your playing, and still have the drive to learn more.

Quote by cjohnson122989

I may be hard on myself, but I know that I've never been satisfied with my playing... and I don't foresee this changing anytime soon because I know I still have more to learn. I don't need to *look* for anyone to blame either because I place the blame squarely on myself. Anytime I'm in a band that falls apart (for whatever reason), I always blame myself for not playing better. It happens. I learn from it and I use it as motivation.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're never satisfied and you DO blame someone, yourself.

Your motivation to practice your guitar is based on this idea that "you should be better". So in order to attain that you practice/study more. I see that as pointless because the result is the same….. your still unsatisfied.

See if you love playing, the pleasure you get from playing is very motivating. People often mistake being satisfied with your playing as being complacent, but that's not the case. It just means your smart enough to accept where your at, and can appreciate it for what it is. You know that if you keep playing you'll get better, so you don't obsess over it. You still learn new stuff, you still have goals.

I find this approach much more realistic, appealing and enjoyable then the "I'm not as good as Guthrie Govan, so I better keep practicing".

Quote by Sean0913
If that were the case, then I don't think those same people would be looking backwards reflectively and saying "I wish I'd..."

oh some may, some may not. My point is that if you play alot and you enjoy it, you will most certainly be getting better at the guitar. You learn stuff, make mistakes, learn more…. it's all part of it. and like it or not it DOES take time to become a proficient player regardless of whether or not you memorized the note names on the neck in 1 weekend or not.

Quote by Sean0913

they'd be more like, "I've enjoyed the ride, had a blast and I'm happy with everything"

well, they would still be aware of things that need work, and still have goals. The difference is they wouldn't be other thinking and worrying about everything, which gives them the ability to enjoy the ride.

Quote by Sean0913

It seems that those who do "I wish I'ds....", are on some level, less than satisfied with how long things took, relative to their current status today.



I would say those people will never be satisfied, and will always be looking for someone or something to blame.

My overall point is that it If you love doing something, you'll do it often. People tend to get good at the things they do often.

and it DOES take time. How much time varies from person to person based on their situation, and this is OKAY. Put in the kind of effort that you can put into it. Enjoy it. Don't worry about.



The way I see it is this…

you love music, you love playing guitar. Do what you love, stop worrying about it.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
^ Though sometimes checking out some tabs may improve your ear (for example if you just can't figure out the chord voicing). But when you find the fingering for the chord, you'll remember what it sounds like and can use it again and can hear it in other songs too.

of-course. and if you can't figure something out by ear, that's really your only way to get it.

the thread title is "does learning by ear improve you as a musician and a guitarist?
I'm only pointing out that learning from tabs is not learning by ear.

Similarly, your ear would recognize the things you learn by reading standard notation, but again it's not learning by ear. (even though it can positively affect your hearing ability).