Content
Thread
Forum
Date
Quote by crazysam23_Atax


Except...you know, the G - Dm thing resolves to Dminor. As has been explained many times to you.


It does not. resolves to C or Am
Quote by AlanHB
The progression CLEARLY resolves to C, not G.

But that's the main issue right? You're confusing the chord that a song starts on with the chord it resolves to. It's not the same thing.



It could resolve to Am as well.
Quote by willT08
There are no words for how pathetic that is

Dude you lost an argument and you're questioning how you look at music.



Dude, you're delusional.
Quote by willT08
Munky all I can say now is that I hope you haven't paid any money for whatever education in music you've received




oh thanks for your concern. At least I can hear the difference between an Em and a G chord.

wills tab
Quote by macashmack
I don't understand why people think will is trolling. He's simply revealing your stupidity. It's not trolling at all, he's genuine.


I'm sorry you don't get it. To me it's very obvoius. Maybe if you look up the definition of internet troll, and then read through the threads you'll get it. Then again maybe you'll avoid doing that so you don't have to feel like you said anything wrong. and I haven't called you stupid. I may think it, but I won't use it as part of an argument.
Quote by willT08
It's just not what you were trying to say

You've just had to accept that what you were saying was dumb and now you're pretending you meant something else. You're telling me that this quote was you trying to "All music has musicality and yes sounds exist that aren't music"

come off it mate. Just admit that what you were saying was silly, and now you realize that musicality as you've described it isn't meaningful in any real way

I swear to god you can do it and this can all be done


How do you know what I'm trying to say? I know you like to quote people and then change the words around so it says what YOU think they meant, or what you wish they meant so you'll have an argument…… the thing is, you've been wrong each time so far.

I think you should stop trolling. If you want to have a legitimate & polite conversation that's fine, but if you're just going to troll, call people names, misquote them, and tell them what they are thinking, you should go back to the pit.
Quote by willT08
but that's what you've just said

**** meeeeee i need to sleep

EDIT: Okay I'm going to try and walk you through what YOU SAID very easily

I will put the important things big so you get it

You said THIS


Okay

There is no MUSICAL INTENT. That is, the note hasn't been generated to be part of a piece of music. It is just a sound. THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID

Taking that, what would we say sounds have that are generated as part of a piece of music. We would say that they have MUSICAL INTENT wouldn't we?

Now looking at what you said again. Things with NO MUSICAL INTENT have NO MUSICALITY. Therefore, what do things with MUSICAL INTENT have? We could say that sounds with MUSICAL INTENT have MUSICALITY

Great.

Since all sounds within a piece of music have MUSICAL INTENT, all sounds in a piece of music have MUSICALITY. Therefore MUSICALITY is another word for PLAYING MUSIC. This is what YOU HAVE SAID


LOL

I was just trying to describe how you could play a note without musicality. So you agree that what I suggested would work?
Quote by willT08
but that's what you've just said

**** meeeeee i need to sleep


It's not what I said. and how can I agree with you on a point that you never made in the 1st place.
Quote by willT08
so we all agree that it's impossible to be doing music without musicality

therefore it's a useless term that just means playing music

i'm glad this is all over

now some important scales to know: if you know the note F# you can leng down the rave so learn that and make it sound different

thank you very much, all of you. Goodnight


You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better, but it's not true.
Quote by willT08
right so your definition of musicality is "be playing music"?

edit: it just doesn't seem like the point you're trying to make is that every time you are playing music you are using some 'musicality'

because then it just means to be playing music and that's pointless


I didn't give "my" definition. I didn't make up the word. You can look it up though.

I'm just saying that if you want to play a note with "no musicality" as Eastwinn asked, then doing what I described will get you there.
so, back to this. I'll take out the word "feel" since some people can't handle that concept…. and it wasn't even the point anyway. I should have known that to would be troll food.
You guys can always start another thread if you really want to argue about the concept of playing with feel.

Quote by Eastwinn
still confused on this musicality thing. how can i play a note without musicality?

just play it how you normally do


But seriously, just hit a random note. No context, no musical intent, Just hit the note.

No musicality there, it's just a sound.
Quote by macashmack
This makes sense.


Look at wills post. Just answer the question it was asked to you.


He can look up the definition himself, and state his opinion if he wants.

Quote by willT08
if i did why would i keep aasking


so you're saying you have no idea what "feel" is.

Quote by willT08
why do you keep deflecting from just answering the question? since you seem to know what it is


Because you're trolling.

If you really want to know what feel is, look it up. I don't owe you an answer.
Quote by macashmack
Then just answer these questions; What is feel? How do you gauge feel? How does feel make music "better"? Is there a universal standard for feel? With which techniques could one go about learning to have feel?


why don't you answer it
Quote by willT08
well if you could just tell me what feel is we could get on with it properly

You don't know what feel is?
Quote by macashmack
You're ignoring because you don't actually have an answer or argument because your side is the wrong one.


oh okay

you wanna argue about wills involvement in this thread now? that'll be fun
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Why do you guys keep taking this troll seriously?


who's taking him seriously? I'm ignoring

Quote by macashmack
While this is true, why can't a random assortment of letters be enjoyed the same way a novel can? If someone enjoys it, why is their opinion worth less?



I'll sell you a book filled with a random assortment of letters if you're into that sort of thing. Up till now, it hasn't seemed marketable, but maybe now is the time to release it!

Damn, I could get rich on this idea!
Quote by macashmack
If the baby is getting enjoyment out of its sounds it is equal to the baby.

This isn't math. There is no standard nor is there an objectively correct answer.



LOL


and this amazing piece of literature is equal to the works of shakespeare…...

alfdkjkjdlf fdkljdf alkdjf fdkjlkjl.

I feel so good about myself because standards do not exist. Therefore whatever I do is as good as anyone else. Hell, it's better, because I think it is. I should put out a book like that, I bet people will totally enjoy it. It will be used as study material for years to come.

or maybe this idea only applies to music?
Quote by macashmack
How am I mistaken? Have I misunderstood you or do you simply believe my opinion to be wrong?

If it's the first we need to get on the same page.



Your mistaken to think that the sound made by a baby bumping a guitar and making the strings vibrate is equal in musicality to a Beethoven Symphony.
Quote by macashmack
You're dense for thinking that someone believing that 2+2=3 is the same as someone thinking that there is no hierarchy of music.


that's your mistaken opinion.
Quote by macashmack
Lol are you really this dense?


So, Im dense for not being mad at you?

Quote by Eastwinn
the problem is that the definition doesn't discriminate. it follows that all music has musicality and i fail to see how one note does not satisfy that.


I said a random note with no feel or context. I'm sorry for your failure.

Quote by macashmack
The one built into my computer. How does that matter though? You're are just getting mad that there is no such thing as good musicality. Why does it matter if there is such a thing as it?

There is no objectively good music. Every sound is equal. "A single note with no context" as you put it is equal to a Beethoven symphony.



I'm not mad that you have that opinion. I'm not mad if someone thinks 2 + 2 = 3 either.
Quote by Eastwinn
i did but the dictionary is a particularly unhelpful document.



If you can't comprehend that, I don't see how I could help you.

Quote by macashmack
You asked me my definition. I used the dictionary definition.


which dictionary?
Quote by Eastwinn


i'm not sure what musicality is so that's why i asked you.


try looking it up. then base your opinion on the standard definition.
Quote by Eastwinn
okay so one note by itself has no musicality. why do i want this musicality thing?


well it could, but I said a note with no context or feel. Just a random note.

Why do you want musicality? How should I know what you want or not? Tell me why you wouldn't want to play music on your musical instrument with musicality?
Quote by macashmack
Tastefulness, but that's subjective so it doesn't actually exist.


So based on your personal definition, that you made up, musicality doesn't exist. Interesting. I guess you can never lose an argument if you make up your own definitions for things. Very clever!
Quote by macashmack
Musicality either doesn't exist, or it is always present. There is no in between.


how do you define musicality?
Quote by JohnProphet
one thing about the minor pentatonic scale....I wouldnt even think of it like a "scale." If you think of it simply as a scale then u might be tempted to just run it up and down like you were practicing a 3 octave major scale to a metronome.

The minor pentatonic "box" isnt generally used like that. It fits under the fingers so well that it really lends itself to expression and manipulation by string bending and vibrato etc. Joe Satriani has a lesson on utube where he calls that "pushing and pulling." So dont think of it as a "scale" to be played up and down

if u watch Johnny Winter or Hendrix or BB King play u see that they could get a lot from the box position without ever really moving their hand around that much...they could stay on just a few notes and got a lot of sounds from just bending and vibrato etc.


well, scales are linear. You can go up or you can go down. It don't see any reason to think of the minor pentatonic scale as anything other than what it is….. a scale.

Knowing it's a scale shouldn't make you think that your limited to going up and down. Just use music as a reference point, rather than some exercise you find online or in a guitar magazine. That's where the mindless running of scales comes from. People search for things to "make them better", and what they are often presented with is scale exercises, minus the context of actual music.
Quote by MapOfYourHead
Complete minimalism: a feel in itself.

uh yeah

Quote by Eastwinn
still confused on this musicality thing. how can i play a note without musicality?

just play it how you normally do


But seriously, just hit a random note. No context, no feel. Just hit the note.

No musicality there.
Quote by flaaash
I mean I can sing it - but not sure how to 'pick' the melody on the guitar (note by note)

oh, so you wrote a song vocally, and you just can't find the notes on the guitar.

Maybe someone will help you, but I also suggest to just keep trying. struggling through stuff is part of learning. You'll get more out of it that way.

Also, as I've said before, more experience in general will make songwriting alot easier. A person that could play a bunch of songs, and solos by ear, could do what your asking. Learning about scales and keys (and how to play them on your guitar), would make a big difference as well.
Quote by willT08
Ignore me, I am just a troll. Hopefully the mods will notice and ban me but for now just ignore me. I will quote you and change the words to make it look like you said something else just to piss you off. Like I said, I'm a troll.


yeah, I believe you.
Quote by flaaash
I've been working on this new song for a while now.

I'm trying to work out how to write the melody out (in terms of which not when) but am struggling.

If I make a recording of it on soundcloud and post a link, can someone try and tab it ? I'm sure it's simple I'm jus struggling


Thanks


I don't get how you could play it, but not be able to tab it. Do you know how to read tab?
Quote by Quazzar
I've been practicing guitar now for the last 3 years...I'm a older gentleman so it's taking me a little time to get my speed up and fingers moving fast (Classic Rock). I know all the pentatonic patterns and can pick pretty fast up and down the neck but it just sounds blahhhh not very melodic, I can hit some pretty nice licks but I need to learn the next step to making my solo melodic...what should I study to add to my solo's...arpeggio's I read alot on but havent quiet tried them...If I'm shredding up the neck with a fast solo what can I add to the pentatonic scales that Im using...Thanks in advanced


Learn some solos.

Otherwise your just mechanically piecing together random ideas, which tends to sound blahhh and not very melodic.


If you like classic rock, there are tons of solos to learn.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Although this is all in C, the problem is (imho)...we can easily describe all of these scales as "C major with accidentals".


The problem with describing them as "C major with accidentals", is that it's not descriptive enough.


Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Yes, the CST method can give some nice "color changes", but I don't think we need CST to teach musicians to achieve that.

For example:
I understand, even though they call it "D minor blues" over the ii, we're still in C. But I don't see the need to bother with that


On the ii chord, we could just emphasize the 2 and 4 (and maybe even play C after a D or something, so it "sounds" like C is acting as the b7 of a Dm7 -- fake it, so to speak) to emphasize to the listener that it's the ii chord. We can do similar things with the V chord.


well, there are lots of ways to approach it. If you stay diatonic over the ii chord, sticking with the Major scale and emphasizing chord tones such as the R, b3, 5, b7, 9, 11 & 13 works great. Beyond that though, you can use other specific scales to get a specific color. Pentatonic and blues scales work great. Likewise on Dominant chords you can apply things like the whole scale for a b5/#5 sound, or the diminished for b9's. You'll still be emphasizing chord tones in the exact same way, but you follow a different scale to connect them. It takes practice, but it's not a bother. It just opens up new sounds….. adds more colors to your pallet. Well worth the effort if you enjoy those sounds.


Now when you get into things like Mixolydian over the V chord or dorian over ii, that's different because it would sound the same as playing the Major scale (of the key) over those chords. So, those colors are already on the palette if you know the Major scale and diatonic arps.
Quote by SuperKid
Again, if you know your major scales in the 12 keys you already know all the modes.


well, not really. I mean that's like saying that just because you learned the Major scale, you automatically know all the diatonic arpeggios within that scale, which is of course not true.


Quote by SuperKid

Even in Jazz when you play a ii V I for example, theoretically the chord scales would be D dorian over D-7, G mixo over G7, and C ionian over Cmaj7.



Theoretically you'd be playing notes from the C major scale through a ii V I progression. Using modal terms here is simply a mistake.


Quote by SuperKid


Separating every chord into a different entity with his own scale is dumb. There is no way to think about a million different scales when the tempo is fast.


Well I agree about using modal terms inappropriately such as the dorian-mixo-Major thing over a ii V I, but there are plenty of scale options over something like that. For instance you could do something like…

ii - C Major
V - G Major blues (no were not IN G Major, but this gives a nice change of color over the chord)
I - C Major blues

or maybe:

iii - C Major
vi - C Major
ii - D minor blues (again were still in C even though were naming this a "d" scale)
V - diminished scale (whole - half) from the 3,5,b7 or b9 for an altered dominant sound
i - C Major

If you work on the concept slowly, you can ultimately do it over fast tempos as well.
Quote by Fret Frier
So I have memorized and beaten to death these scales. I have practiced them over a backing track and kept timing just fine. I'm unsure of what to do next. How do I take these few notes and create a melodic solo? Are there any solos using this scale that I should use to get ideas? I'm not sure whether I just need to learn other peoples solos and wait for the time to come, or dive head first into theory and start now.


A very common mistake for guitarists is to learn a scale pattern and then go straight to "improvising" over a backing track. It's kinda like learning the alphabet and then expecting to be Shakespeare, without ever heaving read a book..

Quote by Dave_Mc
learn a bunch of classic solos and also blues licks (whole lotta love by led zep is pretty good)




Definitely learn some solos. Take in the sounds, develop techniques, get inspired.

I don't consider it "stealing" though, I'd say it's a way of learning the language. In time, with enough experience, you can develop your own voice while speaking that language.
It's like we all are communicating in English, so we use some of the same words and phrases, but we are still individuals in what we say with it, and how we say it.

Of-course some people do steal in the sense that they just regurgitate things that they heard someone else say, but that shouldn't hold you back from learning the language. You can be your own person if you choose to.
Quote by cdgraves
I'm not sure what the disagreement is, then. The question was whether to learn all the major scales all over the fretboard.

well, you implied that it was bad to visualize scale patterns unless it's more than 1. I'm saying 1 is just fine for starters. You'll get to the other ones, and lots of other stuff.
Quote by cdgraves



And you can't change positions fluidly without practicing the notes in different places on the fretboard.

practicing the scale in different positions IS practicing the notes in different places on the fretboard.

It's easy to change positions fluidly when you know the positions.


Quote by cdgraves
examples of licks that require position changes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9MkYKzjh0A&feature=youtu.be

The volume is low, but notice that by changing position, I'm able to use consistent timbre and have greater freedom with legato techniques. It's actually easier to slide in/out of the notes when changing position.


Ofcourse, you can connect the positions on the same set of strings to keep a consistent timbre.

I'm not sure I get the point your trying to make with that though. If it's just that knowing more places to play something gives you more options, I agree. But again you have to start somewhere. Knowing 5 different ways of play a C chord is great, but in the beginning learning 1 and making music with that is fine. Nothing to stop you from expanding.


Quote by MaggaraMarine
It's the wrong word to describe what people meant. I think what cdgraves meant was that there's more to music than just pitches. If you play the right pitches and do nothing with dynamics and that kind of stuff, it sounds "meaningless". And I'm pretty sure you get this and are here to argue just for the sake of it.



Yeah, hes' definitely just trolling. No real point other than to annoy people.
Quote by cdgraves
Making a note mean more than it's pitch.


You can do that in 1 position.

Quote by cdgraves
There are a lot of tones and melodies that are simply not possible with position-playing. Without good knowledge, you can forget things like smooth double stop melodies.



It's all available in "position playing". If the note you need is beyond the range of your position, you just change positions.

Also I would argue, that if you play guitar, you are always "position playing" whether you choose to recognize it or not.
Quote by cdgraves
There's nothing wrong visualization, you just have to do it in more than one position at a time. If you have to move your hands around to reference a root, then your melodies will not be smooth.



well, you have to start somewhere. If you're playing over something that stays in 1 key (which lots of songs do), then 1 position is sufficient to get you going. It won't restrict you from learning other things like the note names or the other patterns.

Quote by cdgraves
Having a pitch within reach doesn't mean it can be hit with musicality it calls for. That's where thorough knowledge meets technique. To pay musically you have to do more than hit the pitch.

For example:


Gmaj7

e----------2-3-|
B---------3----|
G------2-4-----|
D-----4--------|
A--2-5---------|
E-3------------|

e--------------------|
B------------------8-|
G-------------7-/11--|
D---------7-/9-------|
A-----5-/9-----------|
E-3-/7---------------|


Same notes, but the second one moves through several positions to accommodate the slides. There are a great many times when you'll want to stay one one string for consistent tone or to use specific techniques, and you have to know the fretboard horizontally to do that.

That's what I meant by expanding "range" - being able to move horizontally puts more of the fretboard in play while also giving you more opportunities to use technique effectively.


Being able to visualize the different patterns/positions makes this much easier.

Also, you can play with plenty of "musicality" just within that 1 pattern. Sliding to a new pattern isn't any more musical then choosing the same note within the pattern. It's just another choice. (which is nice to have)