Found 400 results
Found 400 results
(a) No, I don't think you can make that logical leap. You came up with a very negative/biased definition, and then claimed that if people don't agree with it, that that means we can't come up with a definition that everyone might agree with.
If we got someone who was unbiased (or at least who was at least making a vague pretense of being at least half-objective) to come up with a compromise definition, I'm sure we could thresh something out that most of us could at least broadly agree with.
I disagree with the first.
I agree with the second.
Agreed. If you haven't even decided what the question is, I'd argue that *that's* arguing for the sake of it (especially when GM is throwing round ad hominems like "pretentious" without even coming up with a consensus of who he's throwing them at).
Of course, no guarantee coming up with a definition is even possible (or even if it is, that it'll solve anything), but it's bound to be worth a try all the same.
And just to clarify, I actually normally agree with GM, fwiw. Just not here.
1) How is that different from a large proportion of classical music? Most concertos etc. for specific instruments in classical music are pretty much the same.
I disagree with your assessment of the subject matter, and also the "draw for the fans". Even when I bought more into the "speed for the sake of speed" thing than I do now, I still liked the more melodic pieces, and liked them for the tunes/musical content as well as the "Woah, how did he do that?" aspect of it.
Even if everything you're saying is true (and I would dispute that it is, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is), I still don't see how it's a problem. Film buffs say all the time that they like a certain movie because, "Actor X's performance was amazing!". Classical fans constantly say they like "Violinist X's interpretation of some really old piece of music", and again it's not considered to be a problem.
Is it a problem liking music which also has good playing in it? I wasn't aware that that was a problem.
And shred fans are the pretentious ones?
2) Probably not, but as I said, we might as well try. Apart from anything, if you're saying things which are liable to cause offence, you might as well at least try to narrow the group of people you're likely to offend to those that you actually mean to offend.
As I said above with the sturgeon's law thing, I think there's a bit of a double standard at work. It's like music is subjective until it comes to shred, but it just is objectively lame or "missing the point".
Yeah, but opinions would be a lot more credible if we had first defined shredding. That way people would actually know if they agreed or disagreed with somebody because they may be talking about the same thing with different words. And different definitions of different words.
So what does shredding mean? That should be the first question.
Ive been playing for around a year now, and I think I'm pretty decent at blues and metal, although I cannot pick incredibly fast, nor can I make a "wicked" guitar solo. But I am good at improvisation both blues and metal. Does that alone make me good? Or does not being able to have my fingers fly across the fretboard automatically make me a beginner?
Yeah. This thread is kind of useless because it's full of people arguing about their opinions of something that we haven't even really defined.
I personally would like to be able to shred, however I hear people saying a lot of negative things about it.
For instance a lot of people say it doesn't take any musical talent and it is just a skill you develop through muscle memory if you practice long enough.
I even see comments on Youtube videos of people saying things like "even a person who was born deaf could probably learn to shred without ever hearing a song in his life.", or "This just gets old after the 1st few times."
Does everyone feel this way?
Also I am not asking this to decide whether I want to learn to do it or not because I will learn it regardless, but I just want to see what everyone thinks.
That's an interesting point.
The big problem I can see with that, though, is that if we go down that path, we won't actually agree what shred even is-
I found a blues riff online that I'm trying to learn, but it calls for me to fret this chord, which it calls Eb9: xx5686.
Whether I bar the lower three strings of the 6th fret or play the two 6th fret notes with my ring and middle fingers, my pinky just does not reach the 8th fret. Well, it just barely gets over the 7th fret, but not enough.
This is sort of discouraging, since I've been playing 3 years. Is this considered an advanced chord, or is it something any aspiring player should have in his/her bag? If the latter, then I guess I really need to get to work on some stretching exercises...
shred = all about speed
Ferrari F40 = all about speed
has nothing to do with being gaudy.
woah woah now,
that is a goddamn affront to bimmers. I object!!! You wanna talk class?
now that I think about it this car analogy thing really doesn't hold up... I mean.... you would refuse THESE?
@ GuitarMunky - I'm sure you like some music with fast playing. The emphasis doesn't need to be in speed to be considered shredding. I think "shred" kind of has a negative vibe to it. When people say they don't like shredding, they usually talk about music that only focuses on speed. They may forget that the music they like also has fast parts.
Like play out of tune bends and generic pentatonic licks and all the other dad rock cliches?
I find most shred fans to be pretentious.
Hi all, i'm new around these parts <(^-^< of the great interweb (>^-^)>
so i'm not sure if this is a ridiculously obvious thread or not,
but i'd just like to pose the question that's been in my mind for a long while now:
What is the point of learning traditional music notation, and how important is it to a composer's practice?
- Nowadays, most aspiring musicians like myself have access to computer programs that have compositional software built in; however, these programs do not use traditional notation, rather they vary from number systems to little red squares you mark into empty boxes in a grid with the note names and rhythm.
I could compose a whole string orchestra on my computer, a symphony, or a pop song for a rock band, but none of it would come out in traditional notation.
This sometimes bothers me.
Would I be able to work with classically trained musicians in a studio?
How does a musical community ( like a band ) evolve when it's reliant upon either describing a sound, or learning everything by ear?
I think of great musicians like Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, Sun Ra, classical composers, etc. who knew how to write their musical thoughts out on paper and share them with other people in a very direct way, and i start to think, is that what it takes to be a complete musician?
Perhaps these are unnecessary doubts, but i'd like to hear what the Ultimate Guitarists have to say about learning how to transcribe music, and whether or not you feel like it impacted your musical practice.
ty for reading / replying
Thanks for all of the replies so far, seems to be a consistent theme that different skills are important for different styles.
I like a lot of jazz music and definitely metal, so i'm thinking that eventually I will need to learn how to read and write sheet notation.
How did any of you guys or gals learn how to read it? Did you find a teacher or did you just sit down with some sheet music and grind it out?
You better start believing in troll threads...YOU'RE IN ONE
If someone can explain what exactly the topic of this thread is, I'll leave it open.
I'm going to spare you the whole "I have dreams of being a rockstar" paragraph. I don't ask for much in life. I'm in love with my guitar and would one day like to make a living as a musician. The problem is, you probably would have a better chance making it to the moon in a boat that making a respectable wage in this industry. Is it even possible to somehow make around 45,000 a year? I'm in school now to become a computer engineer. I figure it's the smartest thing to do with my life. When I die though, I don't want to regret not giving it a shot. I'd like to be able to share something I love with people. Is it even feasible to be in a successful rock band these days? Where would I start?
It's at the point now where everyone just assumes Will is taking the piss. Nobody thinks. Nobody uses their brain.
Yes, it often has some satirical elements, but the topics are worthy of discussion. More worthy than a lot of the threads in MT that look more like a broken record than intelligent disscussion.
The only arguements that happen are between yourselves when you all rabble rabble rabble when you don't get something.
^^^ Thanks for demostrating my point Will
I think really he's just a Pit regular who is spamming MT for fun.
If you close the theory of emo thread, you'll have to close every thread in the same vain. You can't pick and choose because you're suspicious of a users intentions.
I don't see the difference between kids who grew up with digital format and people who remember older media. It's all just a way to store data and play it back later.
When some people make music they click instead of bowing or picking or some other way of doing it.
Are you suspicious of that?
Load up a major key backing track and play the major pentatonic over it. It will now sound like the major scale.
I'm so used to playing in minor when doing improvisation solos. If i try to play a major pent. solo, half the time i end up sounding like im playing the relative minor scale.
No its talking about how shit posters are responsible for making MT shitty. If the threads werent months old and couldnt be looked up, we could go back. Point is, when it comes to harmony, sean makes some bad posts
There's a lot of people who aren't happy with the way things roll here in MT, and MT is getting a bit of a bad reputation within UG.
A lot of people have been trying to change the general tone of MT threads and posts, but some people feel like there's some backlash against it by other forum regulars. Of course these people haven't always gone about it in the best of ways, but that's another story.
Anyway, I feel like it would be appropriate to discuss what we think could be improved in this subforum.
So yeah let's do that.
I'm sure some of you know this already but...
For all you people out there still playing an actual instrument and actually practicing, stop playing stupid scales and diddling around with solos all day. Priority one is to develop of a solid sense of rhythm and ensemble. That's the difference between sounding professional and sounding like amateur hour.
Get your metronome and use it as a drummer. How? Every beat is a 2 or 4 of a bar.
So the metronome goes tick, tick, tick, etc. You count 1 tick(2) 3 tick(4) and play along. As you may deduce, yes that means you divide the intended tempo by half when setting the metronome. Do that until you're better than the metronome.
This guy explains it in a jazz context but it works for rock too
yea I have no idea why I created this thread either.
It's funny, because dad rock guitarists traditionally used wah pedals to cover up their lack of skill and here a dad rock enthusiast is using it to cover up his lack of a good argument.
In terms of instrumental prowess, musicianship has increased exponentially decade by decade, particularly in terms of guitar/bass/drums.
Well, hellfar. This is just a silly opinion thread at this point.
I don't think comparing an instructional video of two guitarists to a live video of a band playing a song is fair...
Well right, then you know it's not gonna make anyone shit sound good
I wouldn't necessarily say either of those is better either, but to be fair, that is jeff beck in the 2000s, not the 1960s...
Though GuitarMunky didn't mention the 80s, he cut it off before the 80s. At least as far as rock and metal are concerned, I'd say the musicianship went up in the 80s, too.
Have you ever used Melodyne or something like that?
EDIT: The thing I see with a lot of people that say "Ugh technology lets anyone sound good" is that they're recordings don't sound good and I think there's a lot of jealousy and misplaced anger towards production simply because it's out of someone's reach.
You don't know how production actually works, do you?
In terms of instrumental prowess, musicianship has increased exponentially decade by decade, particularly in terms of guitar/bass/drums.
Also this whole idea of technology as a magical alchemy that can turn lead into gold is a long running misconception..
Vocal pitch correction, for instance, can only do so much. If a person can't sing at all, it won't make them sound good. It's more just a little bit of polishing on the surface. It's no different than EQing a track, adding a splash of reverb to thicken the vocals, compressing audio for smoother levels, etc in terms of just being a little bit of something to make the finished product smoother and slicker.
And all of those things and more were being done in the music of yesterday to fix up the sound, no different than today.
I agree with GuitarMunky. I lived through the 60's and 70's music era and I think difference is that many of the great bands of those eras were great bands before they went into a studio and just played. They played together in the studio and the mistakes are often left in because the performance was so good. It wasn't auto tuned or manipulated and remixed by several different engineers and producers. The drummer wasn't using a click track (though a few probably should have). There wasn't the luxury of unlimited tracks to do endless overdubs so you had to practice, make decisions ahead of time and get it right before you went into the studio.
The Beatles recorded their first album in one day (13 hours) by just playing live in the studio to get down a single channel basic track, then adding vocals on another track. Mixing was just combining two tracks- vocals and instruments. Some songs (like "Twist and Shout") were completely live first takes. You can hear the excitement and feel in that album. While I enjoy a lot of what is out there today I don't often get that feeling from all the note perfect productions. Bands slave over each note often taking years to put out a new album. I think one of the differences is that bands in days gone by played live a lot, anywhere, anytime for little to no money. They got themselves together as a band first through long sweaty nights and hard work. Today I think too many bands start in the studio without what use to be called "paying your dues".
I was just listening to some Buddy Holly and artists from the 50's and 60's and realized that compared to today's music its so much better. The lyrical content and overall sound and musicianship is amazing. What happened to that? It really makes me feel that I was born 50 years too late. Anyone else agree or disagree?
As the title says, I'd like to know what are your views about being polistrumentist (if this word exist).
Are yourself a polistrumentist?
What do you think are the pros and cons, and do you think it's worth the effort?
Do you feel it improved your songwriting/composing?
Also, what instrument do you consider to be the best complementary instrument for a guitar player?
I'm looking forward to know your views on this topic!
Hi! For you weed smokers out there, how do you feel this do affect your musicianship? Good or bad?
It is, because it implies a half-truth.
Maybe so, but I find it misleading since we're not talking about modes.
"The natural minor mode" (which is actually "the natural minor scale" or "a minor key" or even, more rarely, "the Aeolian mode") is a misnomer term. However, if you use the term "minor mode" to refer to the Dorian mode, the Phrygian mode, & Aeolian mode...then you are using the term correctly.
Does any particular style of music use a ii - i, that is a diminshed triad(ii dim) to a i chord in the natural minor mode to end a progression or phrase?
This does not seem like a very strong resolution compared to other types. The only thing I can try to hear is scale degree 2 and 4 resolving to scale degree 1.
My theory text mentions that the ii (dim) chord is used as a predominant which I can clearly hear why. But why cannot it be used as I mentioned earlier? Not strong enough?