Content
Thread
Forum
Date
Quote by Dave_Mc
(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.


My opinion may be negative to those that like shred, but it is my opinion, and I did not claim what you say. The reason we can't come up with an agreeable definition is due to the fact that we have different opinions, and all think that our own is correct, and that the other guys is wrong.

I stated my opinion as an opinion, and asked for yours, but never got it.

So i ask again, what is your opinion on how shred should be defined?

If it's not blatant and excessive showiness what is it to you?


Quote by Dave_Mc


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.



then we would have their opinion, and some guys who agree, and some who don't. just like now
Quote by Dave_Mc
I disagree with the first.

I agree with the second.


right, that's what I was saying. we'll never agree on the 1st.

so what's your opinion on how shred should be defined?
Quote by Dave_Mc



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".



Like I was saying
Quote by MaggaraMarine
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.


okay so 1) how do you define shredding, and 2) what chances do you think this forum has of actually agreeing to a specific definition?


Heres my answer:

1) Guitar oriented music that is constructed for the explicit purpose of showcasing the musicians (generally the guitarists) ability to play fast & showy. Shred music is competitive, much like a sport, as guitarists slave to become known as the fastest and/or showiest.
The subject matter of the music = how "good" the musicians are. The draw for fans is the same. I like xxx artist because they are known to be great musicians.

2) zero chance
Quote by AmericaMURICa
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?


Do you enjoy what you're doing?
Does it sound good?

if the answer is yes, then stop worrying about it. Keep playing.

Contrary to shred fan belief, having your fingers fly across the fretboard is not the sole indicator of what "good" is.

ducks for having committed shred blasphemy.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
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.


gee, that never happens here. :roll eyes:


the thing is, opinions are what were asked for in the OP. I simply gave mine.


Quote by ls2014
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.
Quote by Dave_Mc
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-


so you're implying that there is a path in which we would all agree?

now before you answer think honestly about the threads/posts here.
Quote by krm27
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...

Ken


well, it's a diminished triad. There are 2 ways you could play it

you either use all 4 fingers, or you barre with the middle.

as far as it being a "bad" voicing. it is what it is. There is no other voicing for a diminished triad on the top 4 strings.
Quote by Xiaoxi
shred = all about speed
Ferrari F40 = all about speed

has nothing to do with being gaudy.


that's your opinion.

My opinion, which was clearly stated, and which my analogy is obviously based on, is that shred is indeed gaudy music. it's true that all shred music will include fast playing, but not all music with fast playing is shred. The difference IS the gaudiness.
Quote by Xiaoxi
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?







then you're not a very good thinker, because it totally holds up, and no I wouldn't refuse those cars, they are not gaudy as the one in my example was.
Quote by MaggaraMarine
@ 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.



I don't have a problem with fast playing, and I don't consider anything that has fast playing in it to be shred.

The term "shred" became popular in the 80's and is associated with the likes of Yngwie Malmsteen, Paul Gilbert, and the entire shrapnel brigade. These guys made a name for themselves and defined the genre of "shred" by competetively playing over the top. Whether it was speed or some oddball technique, people were competing to on the top, to be known as the "guy that does this crazy technique, or plays faster than anyone else, or both) and of-course to be on the cover of the guitar mags.

While I can appreciate hard work in any form, I don't enjoy what they did with the guitar / music. I consider to be a musically equivalent to something like this….




Im sure it took some skills to put that car together, but I wouldn't want to drive it.

I'd much rather drive this….

Quote by theogonia777
Like play out of tune bends and generic pentatonic licks and all the other dad rock cliches?

oh yeah, definitely typical of all non-shred type of music. It's all just "dad" rock, and they couldn't bend for shit back then.


Like I was sayin'

Quote by GuitarMunky
I find most shred fans to be pretentious.


& fiercely defensive.

Must not offend the Gods in their presence.
There are exceptions, but I consider most shred music to be gaudy, and find most shred fans to be pretentious.
Quote by The Flying Whiz
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


well. it depends what you want to do.

If you just want to compose in the Matrix with software instruments, and /or drag and drop samples, you could certainly do so without reading standard notation.

If you want to study music (like from a book or in a class), or play a gig where reading music is required, you might find the ability to read standard notation to be a benefit.

Quote by The Flying Whiz
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?



Pretty much any method book will get you going.
Quote by bassalloverthe
You better start believing in troll threads...YOU'RE IN ONE


Oh, I believe
Quote by AlanHB
If someone can explain what exactly the topic of this thread is, I'll leave it open.


Quote by RiffEmAll
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?


Sure, it's possible, but is it realistic? …..

and are people that haven't achieved that success themselves your best source for learning how to do it?
Quote by MapOfYourHead
It's at the point now where everyone just assumes Will is taking the piss. Nobody thinks. Nobody uses their brain.


My brain recognizes a troll thread.

Quote by MapOfYourHead

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.


That's a matter of opinion, but trolling is trolling.

Quote by MapOfYourHead

The only arguements that happen are between yourselves when you all rabble rabble rabble when you don't get something.


The only arguments here = every single thread, your rabble rabble included.
Quote by AlanHB
^^^ Thanks for demostrating my point Will

I think really he's just a Pit regular who is spamming MT for fun.



It's pretty obvious.

Quote by MapOfYourHead
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.



na, he can do what he wants, he's the mod. There is a difference between stupid threads, and troll threads the were created specifically to cause arguments.
Quote by The4thHorsemen
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.


Well, the mediums do sound different, and people that grew up listening to music on vinyl have the perspective to recognize the difference and appreciate it.
Quote by willT08
When some people make music they click instead of bowing or picking or some other way of doing it.

Are you suspicious of that?


You mean they don't play an instrument.

I suppose I'd be suspicious that the music might just be cut and paste samples with some carefully selected presets. Then again it might not be. Who knows.
Quote by AlanHB

Load up a major key backing track and play the major pentatonic over it. It will now sound like the major scale.


Well, it'll sound like the Major Pentatonic scale. add the 4th and 7th, and it'll sound like the Major scale.

Quote by musicandthewave
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.



That's probably because you're actually playing over minor progressions half the time.
Quote by bassalloverthe
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



The truth is, this place is Ultimate Argument.com

always has been, always will be.

It's the place people go to reinvent themselves as experts, and to argue with other experts.

Sad, but true
Quote by sickman411
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.


well, it comes down to this.

You have a bunch of experts who couldn't possibly be wrong about anything, yet disagree with each other.

Welcome to the internet. And btw, it's always been this way.
Quote by Xiaoxi
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.



screw all that, metronomes are for figuring out how fast you are. You can also use it for speed training, like you practice your scales at 50 bpm, but then gradually work your way up to 200 bpm. When you can play your scales at 200 bpm, you'll be a total expert and can play anything.
Quote by theogonia777
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.



says the guy who thinks this (because he's too young to know better)…

Quote by theogonia777
In terms of instrumental prowess, musicianship has increased exponentially decade by decade, particularly in terms of guitar/bass/drums.
Quote by Morphogenesis26
Well, hellfar. This is just a silly opinion thread at this point.

yes it is, as are most threads here.
Quote by Morphogenesis26
I don't think comparing an instructional video of two guitarists to a live video of a band playing a song is fair...

wah
Quote by willT08
Well right, then you know it's not gonna make anyone shit sound good


it allows a mediocre singer to fix bad notes and timing, and make a professional sounding vocal track. Whether it sounds good or not is a matter of opinion, but it's definitely different than recording a skilled vocalist. No melodyne needed in that situation.


Quote by Dave_Mc
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...


It's obviously a matter of opinion, but I would. I definitely consider what Jeff Beck was doing to be "better"/more enjoyable for me to listen to. I consider it to have better tone, better phrasing, better dynamics, better timing, more/better feel (say what you want anti-feel guys), and less pretentious.

and yeah that's Beck in the 2000's, but to be fair, that's also Marty and Paul in the 2000s (their "heyday" was the 80's)
Quote by Dave_Mc
+1

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.

In the 80's guitarists deliberately & competitively played faster, and flashier, but IMO they didn't play better than guitarists of the 50's 60's and 70's.


For example, I don't believe that this….


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJeVMBWZTic


shows better musicianship than this (even those guys ^ play more notes and faster)….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHHY3eRUMsM


Quote by willT08
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.


Yes, I've used Melodyne, and I can understand you're need to think of it that way. If you just write those people off as being old and jealous, you don't' have to deal with the possibility that they may actually have more experience than yourself, and as a result of that experience, valid opinions that you happen to disagree with.
Quote by caeser1156
You don't know how production actually works, do you?


why don't you explain it to me
Quote by theogonia777
In terms of instrumental prowess, musicianship has increased exponentially decade by decade, particularly in terms of guitar/bass/drums.


not true

Quote by theogonia777

Also this whole idea of technology as a magical alchemy that can turn lead into gold is a long running misconception..


it's not magic, its technology. I never said it could turn lead to gold, I said it allows mediocre musicians to create semi-professional sounding music.

Quote by theogonia777

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.


no, it's actually different.


and I never said things were better or worse, I just stated what I liked about listening to music of that era.

If you like listening to Falloutboy and MCR, I wouldn't have a problem with
that.
Quote by Rickholly74
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".


Exactly
Quote by strat-O-matic92
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?


The thing I like about listening to music from the 50's, 60's and 70's is that you're really hearing a band play together. You're hearing the interaction between the musicians, and the dynamics that come with that. You're hearing the sound of real instruments & amps. (not just emulations) You're often hearing tracks that were played through completely, with the full band (or at least rhythm section) from start to finish.

I also believe that in general, there was a higher standard of musicianship. Technology today allows even the most mediocre musician the ability to create something that at least on the surface sounds professional / semi-professional.
Quote by Michele_R
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!


Do you mean at the same time as "poly" would imply, or do you just mean the existing term "multi-instrumentalist" ??

Assuming you mean multi..

pros …. you can play more instruments


cons… you have less time to practice each instrument


my advice:

Don't do it, just for the sake of it.

It sounds cool to say "I play a bunch of instruments", but if you play them all half ass, it's not really all that cool.
Quote by Usernames sucks
Hi! For you weed smokers out there, how do you feel this do affect your musicianship? Good or bad?


Listening and playing/practicing often will have a much greater affect on your musicianship.

That doesn't mean you can't have fun getting all baked and jamming n stuff, but if you smoke dope because you think it'll increase your musicianship, you're just being stupid.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
It is, because it implies a half-truth.



It does not, that's just your misunderstanding of it.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Maybe so, but I find it misleading since we're not talking about modes.


It's not misleading once you know that its commonly used that way.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
"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.


Its fairly common to use the term "minor mode" to refer to the minor scale, regardless of the variation (natural, harmonic, or melodic).


I've never heard the term "natural minor mode" used though.


Quote by Unreal T
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?



It's not a strong resolution, but that doesn't mean it won't sound good.
Quote by Eastwinn
is that a challenge?


LOL sure if you want.