| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 08/22/2005 : 2:48:23 PM
After fiddling with the song for a while, never learning it, I just NOW begin to see what the fuck those shapes are that he's using(dom7 inversions w/ b7 on bottom) throughout most of the song. Suddenly the song got a whole lot more complex and pure fucking genius...
To whoever tabbed out that song, you are a GOD. I wouldn't be able to hear most of those voicings if my life depended on it. And the chord improv part he does is also flawless, so, bravo, i wish i were you, you smart bastard. |
| 42 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 07:51:25 AM
Yah, I like to play that song, so I would throw in my 2 cents...awesome. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 8:08:18 PM
Stranger would be fucking sexy. |
| centurybrother |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 6:58:31 PM
Thanks for the out of the way comments, glad to see that my work on that tab came in useful for someone...if you really want another tab, I was also working on Stanger from Nomadic...I was about half way through it and lost interest...if you all would like a real note for note tab of that, I could slap it together over this weekend probably...let me know guys!
quote:
Originally posted by Hopeful Rolling Waves
I find if you rub a glockenspiel all over your genital region, you soak up quite a thorough knowledge of music theory. Hey...I just learned the Gypsy Minor Scale!
That tab is dope though, it's a shame this guy didn't suck it up and pump out a tab for Smile or Impermanence while he was at it. Though that 7/15/05 DVD should be enough for me to tackle Impermanence finally.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 8:57:52 PM
oh. i guess we agree then. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 3:17:22 PM
It was my fault. I didn't really word that right saying "understanding the composition," but that was the idea. In my eyes, though, hearing is understanding, just through a different sense. Many people talk about "seeing with your ears and hearing with your eyes" when it comes to music, and when I said understanding, that's what I meant. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 11:21:57 AM
hm. perhaps i wasn't making my assertion clear. it's not really about "understand" the composition, but just hearing it at all. supposing a person listening it has no idea about anything we've discussed. he wouldn't hear the chord and think: well that's cleary an e7b5 chord because look how it sets up for resolution on the a chord. he wouldn't know what to call any of that, but he would still hear it for what it is, regardless of name. and because that's what's heard, that's what it is. understanding composition doesn't enter the equation. it's not as if chords are only a certain thing when you do a roman numeral analysis. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 10:24:46 PM
Obviously if there is a clear purpose to calling a chord a certain name, then fine. And the example you gave me was understanding a composition, which is one thing I said would be a good reason to use a specific chord name. You and I are basically saying the same thing. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 12:47:59 AM
i disagree. it's not just when you're looking at composition. it's what the chord does that determines its name. yes, it sounds the same played alone, but so do the words two, to, and too. in context, it's different. for instance, if you're in b flat major, there's no way in hell you could call that chord e7b5 chord, simply because e7b5 implies that you're borrowing an altered dominate chord of the VII scale degree in bflat major. unless you're moving towards the temporarily tonicized VII for some weird, unspeakable reason, than it's simply not an e7b5 chord. no real room for argument there. you would hear its function as dominate tonicizing VII.
i suppose if you were doing a common chord modulation, you could call it by a different name in the new key, the same way you would any fully diminshed 7th chord. you know, since a fully diminshed 7th chord is just stacked minor thirds, there's no real root, so if you want to use it to modulate, you can just call any note the root and call it the appropriate inversion.
and yes, e7#9 would be a good example of a split third, since you have e, g#, d, and g natural. both the major and minor third are present. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 9:36:04 PM
You two just proved my point. To me, it's still just an E7 chord with a Bb bass. That's it, thats as far as one would need to look at it to understand it. Yet, it's also a Bb7b5, Dsusb5#5, E7b5, etc. etc., in different inversions. Everything is really how you want to look at it, and it really only matters when you're writing or understand composition, to maybe understand how a composer came up with a piece. After all, it certainly wouldn't do to look at Blue Bossa in Cm relating everything to G# as the root. That would just make no sense, starting on the bVmin7, unless of course you're a god at jazz, in which case you wouldn't be reading this sad, sad thread.
Split 3rds like as in an E7#9 chord? Yeah those are very interesting. I like the major 7 sound it can be so dissodant played alone, but then with certain harmonies it just fits so perfectly. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 4:19:47 PM
it depends. if it means the b found in the e7 chord is flat and in the bass, then that's some manner of diminshed chord in second inversion. however, if it means that there's a whole e7 chord and then a bflat sounding lower than the notes in the chord, it's a split 5th. it's really more common to have split 3rds. that is to say a chord with both the major and minor 3rd found in the same chord. for example, any arrangments of the notes a, c, c#, and e found in the same chord. split 3rds and 5ths are a lot of fun to play with. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 3:24:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
e7/Bb? do you mean like an e7 chord with bflat in the bass? wouldn't that just be e diminished in 2nd inversion?
I wouldn't really be a diminished because the WTF is the normal fifth of B? I don't know though I guess it could be a Bb half diminished with a flat nine. I don't correct me if I'm not seeing this right here though. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 02:17:13 AM
e7/Bb? do you mean like an e7 chord with bflat in the bass? wouldn't that just be e diminished in 2nd inversion? |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 10:26:48 PM
What I meant by that is if you have a Bb7 chord shell, I wouldn't call it an E7/Bb. That seems redundant to me and although may be a proper way to look at it in some cases, it isn't a very logical way of organizing things. It's always good to know how and why it may be called something else or derived from somewhere else, but for the sake of simplification, these kinds of things can be viewed differently. There are of course alot of scenarios when you really have to view things the complicated way in order to understand the piece properly and improvise over it.
I like my ear more than theory anyways...poo poo on theory |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 9:40:27 PM
likely i would take the approach that seems to tell me most accurately what the sound is. after all, this is music we're analyzing, not ink. it sounds to me like extensions, simply because there aren't enough notes, more often than not, to make it sound like a full fledged polychords. others might disagree about how accurate that is to the sound, and that's fine. my word isn't the law. but wouldn't analyze something the easiest way possible, if the easiest way doesn't show me what the composer's intent was. i knew kids like that in theory classes, who would circle a whole lot of stuff out as non-harmonic tones when they were clearly intended to be part of the chord, which they couldn't immediately identify. why do an analysis unless you want to know what the deal is with something? |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 5:17:21 PM
I agree, dan. The knowledge of all this stuff is really less and less useful as you get more complex, as there are loads of ways to come up with the same sounds/notes, and I would rather take the simpler approach to get the same notes rather than taking the brainy approach. I would probably just look at this as polychords also if someone put it in front of me. Nevertheless, doing it and improvising with it is fucking brilliant. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 11:20:54 AM
when you get into music this complex, there's a thousand ways you could analyze it. there really isn't a right analysis. extensions make the most sense to me here, because sometimes the "polychords" tend to lack some notes from one of the chords in it. if there were more full-on chord stacking i'd be inclined to analyze it as polychord construction. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 10:43:59 AM
I'm going to be sitting here for hours when I get home playing with this stuff. Oh god.. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 7:30:04 PM
Ya, Jemez you can really look at it that way and analyze it that way too, but if I were to play that idea on a piano the B9B13 would probably be more correct in terms of analysis, because I would include the third of the chord, but still it's all in how you think of it and more importantly how you hear it that matters. Like you said though to they are a bitch to use and stay on top of harmonically. It's hard to play shit like this on guitar and allow for things to resolve right. I think it's just a matter of studying voice leading and harmony more in depth. If you're trying to string together one voicing after another with all these extensions it's just going to be a bitch no matter what and if you can do them on the spot, on guitar you just elevated to the god level in my book. If you really want to study it though try to check out the Jazz Theory or Jazz Piano book, both by Mark Levine. Also check out Bill Evans charts and try to arrange them on your instrument and that should just help with ideas you can use.
Dan, I would probably agree that it's more along the line of extensions of the chords and most of the time it's really not poly chordal, but some of them could be seen as more polychordal. Like you mentioned a F#maj being played over the C7. That would basically be one of the upper structures I mentioned. I'm not as well studied into later classical music, as my base has come from studying Bach, basically, and then Jazz theory. The way I think when playing them though is usually to leave out the root since the bass player will probably play it if not on the first beat then usually the second. However if I was playing solo on piano I would be playing a root and then the tritone of the chord and then another chord on top of that making it polychordal.
Some of them like you said though are just extensions and those are the ones you can play and some people will get, but by the time it's really polychordal in the true sense of the word is when people give you the WTF look. In a sense though all of them are just extensions, since for me even if you play a C7 and put an F#maj on top of it depending on what it does it still serves the function of a C7 and can be resolved quite easily back to the tonic. Anyway I just think the two concepts are very similar, and for me it's easier to see it as one chord over another instead of extensions most of the time even if it's just an extension of a flat9 and a 13th added. It's just easier for me to think Amaj over C7 in a playing situation and if I was on piano that's the idea for the voicing I would use. It's just easier to think of for me that way.
As a side note I would stay away from playing roots on upper extensions when your with a bass player since I don't like someone who's always playing rooted voicing and keeping the root at the bottom because then it sounds weird to me if I were to play a tri-tone sub. I just think harmonically open. If you're a guitar player in general think 3&7 anyway for the most part and extensions especially if you're with a piano. Just allow more space and don't try to compete with the piano. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 6:08:53 PM
i think i understand.
this seems like the chromatic mediant concept more than polychords, but obviously applying the concept to dominate and altered dominate chords in conjunction with harmonic extentions. correct me if i'm wrong on that, though. i've always understood polychords in terms of impressionist and 20th century music. that chord in stravinky's "petrushka" comes to mind. i think it's a cdominate7 and f# major at once. anyway, is this more like polychords and i'm missing something? like, when you play the f major chord over the a7 shell in the third example, that reads to me like a harmonic extention and not a polychord. and more importantly, is sounds like an extention to me.
it's very cool. sadly i'm not much of a jazz player, so it's going to take a while for me to get all of this in my head and fingers.
thanks a lot for the explaination. much appreciated. |
| JemezFoodPeople |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 09:58:00 AM
Sometimes I am confused by the chord names.
A7b9b13
E-6------
B-6------
G-7------
D-5------
A--------
E-5------
To me, if i was given these notes, i would say "well, it looks like a Bb6th chord, but the root was moved to A,. the major 7."
My points is that this chord has more in common with Bb than it does with A, yet you still names it using the A as the root. Surely enough, A is the lowest note, but I think you'll get my point.
Another thing is... whenever I come up with some neat-sounding chrods like this, I can never put them together in any kind of order. It sounds like a bunch of garbled mess. Is there any system to figure out "okay, so I have used a D7#4... now what comes next?" |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 10:04:55 PM
Yeah you could literally spend years doing this stuff and come up with some amazing things. When I fuck with this stuff I usually end up having some awesome idea for a song. They really are nutty voicings, but if you're playing by yourself on chord melody, you can be as dissodant and out there as you want to be. Just look at TR. I wouldn't be surprised if on songs like Hermetic Dew Drops he was thinking as simplistically as ii-V or I-IV-V, but he just has taken these kinds of things to the point where he can go off on dissodant tangents and always still know what he's doing. What is ridiculous is that players like Tim probably have the capacity to hear things like this all the time and have it be as natural is you and me hearing a common ii-V progression like x1081010x -> 8x8910x. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 4:16:57 PM
Ok tab will have to do for now since I don't really know how to easily post something in notated format on the boards.
It sounds like you've got the general concept, it's basically polychords yes. I think some of the best explanations are really in the Jazz Theory book, by Mark Levine. Here's a few examples...
First of all my turning a D7 chord to a lydian chord which is kind of going to fuck up the sound of a V chord and I'm more apt to try it on a DMaj7 then D7, but nonetheless. I'll also show one with a root in it in case your the only intstrument. Then just a good lydian chord voicing you can lay down on any maj chord (almost).
D7 E9 D7#4 Amaj7#4 (lydian)
E------------|-4-
B-7---7--7---|-4-
G-5---7--7---|-6-
D-4---6--6---|---
A-5---7--5---|---
E------------|-5-
So now the the D7 basically becomes a D7 with a #4 or a lydian chord. The one with the D root there might sound a little funky with the tritones in it.
A7b9b13 A7 Dmaj7
E-6------5---5--|
B-6------5---7--|
G-7------6---6--|
D-5------5---7--|
A------------5--|
E-5------5------|
That's the sounds of a maj7 chord a half step above a dom chord. I think it works best when you let it go back to a normal dom before resolving it. I usually use that voicing for any b9b13 chord. There are several other you can play over it.
E1/2dim A7b9 C-7 F7
E-6--5--3-5-6------------13-10---|
B----7--4-6-7--6h8p6--8--10-7----|
G----5--3-5-6--8------8--10-7----|
D----8--5-5-5--8------8--10-7----|
A-------0-0-0------------9--7-h8-|
E----0---------8------8----------|
That example is the first couple bars of Stella by starlight with upper structure voicings on all but the C-7. That first A7 is basically an Ebmaj/A then to playing an F triad over the A7 shell which is just the A and seventh G. Then a Dmin triad over it. It sounds pretty hip to me, but it's not exactly straightfoward stuff.
The basic definition of all these is basically a triad over a tri-tone. I had to omit the thirds on most of the chords just so they are playable on a guitar, because it's no piano, but it still works. That first E half dim though is a good example of playing a tritone and then a D triad on top. Try a voicing like 878777 for a C7#11 which can be analyzed as a D triad over the tritone from a C chord (with root). Or x78898 for a C7 b9b13 (aka alt) of course that one is rootless, because it's a guitar, which is a Ab triad over a C7 tritone. Or try xx6787 for a Bb7b9 which is a Dtriad over the Bb7 tritone. Anyway the basic idea is you can play major triads built off the II (large II cause I made it major even though it's normally minor) chord of what ever key your in a bIV or IV. And finally a minor triad built off the #iv. So in the key of C we have a G7 and you can play on the top of the G7 tritone (B&F) an Amaj triad, Bmaj triad, Cmaj triad, and an Ebmin triad. The only real rules are that inversions of the triad and tritone are ok, and doubled notes are ok at or near the top of the voicing only. Those are the basic ones you can use but it gets crazy because you can also use bIII, bV, VI, #IV, bii (minor), biii (min), and #iv (min). Then you have to have a root though to avoid unaltered tritone subsitution. It's literally insane.
To hear some of this stuff in action check out Herbie Hancocks Dolphin dance and Chick Coreas Mirror, Mirror, or basically any bill evans tune. Anyway hopefully that helps. It's a bitch to actually learn this stuff so it's useable, but it's cool stuff. Also there are some cool slash chords you can use to reharmonize ii-V's in which you basically just play the root of the V chord and play a major chord a whole step lower from it above the root of the V chord. So for a D-7 C7 you could just play a Bbmaj7/C and it basically is a combonation of the ii and V chord and it basically becomes a Csus4. It's cool to play them as C phrygian chords too. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 10:32:31 PM
i feel sort of stupid. do you reckon anyone could show me this concept in tab or notation? i think i know what you're talking about, but it's clearer if i see it on a staff of some sort. you're talking about polychords, right? superimposing two different chords to create new chords? my jazz training is lacking painfully. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 9:42:24 PM
Ok well for one thing you're making me want to sit down and analyze this tune. Beyond that as far as what you where talking about with the 7th chords moving around by a step, I think this is the same basic thing as what is known as upper structure voicings. Like for example a lot of times when a C7 chord rolls along I'll put some fucking bite in the song by playing a D triad on top of it resulting in a lydian or #4 chord. I could very well play a D7 over the top but it only really works very well to me when I voice it higher in range then the other chordal instruments or if I'm the only one playing it and the bass plays a root. Only if I play a D7 I'm more likely to not play it with a #9 like you indicated in your voicings, and instead just play it omitting the fifth and playing a ninth like x5455x.
Like you said though most people just look at you like you're a fucking idiot though. You can play all kinds of stuff like that, but man it works so much better on a piano. Check out Herbie Hancock and Bill Evans, they were masters of doing this stuff. One that really gets people on piano is like playing a shell voicing like a root and a seventh and then on top of that playing a maj7 a whole step above that with your right hand. For example D7 shell with an EbMaj7 above it. It results in a b9 b5 chord. It's tough to really get that shit going on guitar though. If I do stuff like this though I often bring it back to the original V chord before the thing resolves. Most people just look at you like your an ass though. Or if they hear you banging the chords out on the piano they give you a WTF type of look. It's crazy stuff though huh?
Oh and one more thing outlining a min 7th chord a half step below the dominant is pretty hip to me when soloing, but it's a bitch to make work. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 7:25:25 PM
Alright, so, about two weeks later of playing this song and i've come across something else that gave me a musical orgasm.
I THINK, keyword think, that this song and the voicings in it are largely based off of the quarky rule taht some jazz buffs go about flinging that if you take any altered dominant voicing and move it up or down in whole steps, it is an altered dominant voicing of the same exact root. So technically you could play x7678o x54560 and 010100 comping over a measure of E7 alt and only get confused looks by 99.9% of the people in the room. Poking around the tab, I noticed this idea pop up all over the place, and that mainly the song progresses b/w say a D7 alt and a D#7 alt looking at it this way. Of course, applying this rule I have no idea what the root might then be, considering this rule implies that a D7 alt voicing is also an E7, F#7, G#7, etc. etc. voicing.
ummm...WTF
Tim...i love you....but not in a gay way. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 02:48:48 AM
I'm "guilty" of using a capo, but only because I sing in weird keys and when I sing I generally like to play with open chords. I have a hard time as it is singing without exerting extra effort on playing. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 01:59:49 AM
it sounds like you use a capo for timbre purposes. nothing wrong with that.
if you have a song in your head that simply isn't in c, d, e, a or whatever, then simply learn it in whatever key it's in. i don't see how the capo is necessary at all. i also don't like tuning down a half step or whatever because a song is in, say, f minor instead of e minor. but alternate tunings are cool becase you do get different harmonics and timbres because of different open strings.
i don't know what the current style of guitar being "built to play in certain keys" means. it has all 12 notes, doesn't it? you can bend for the semitones. sounds to me like it's built for any key. i think maybe it's the guitarists who are built to play in certain keys. "easier" isn't an excuse to just play in certain keys or learn as little as possible. because you know what's easier than being creative only in certain keys? not playing at all. why let the instrument decide what you can and can't do? do you tell the instrument what notes to sound, or does it tell you? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 08/30/2005 : 2:20:28 PM
GuitarisPIMP, Ya I dig that. I misread your original post, because that's the same damn thing I was trying to say, but I was confused. It's like the approach I take. Sometimes though I get tired of chasing tonal centers and I just play based off the feelings chords give me thinking completely outside of tonality. You just to say Fuck Tonality I'm going to play whatever the hell I feel kind of attitude. Most people can't handle the dissonance though. Either that or sometimes I'll conciously play a half step out for like an entire chorus just to mess with people. Test them and see if they are very open to dissonance. It usually just pisses people off.
Anyway I don't think that anyone would disagree that a capo is a useful tool and can be used in a manner that is expanding rather then just an answer for someone who doesn't know their instrument. I know I've met people that slap on the capo so they can more easily play chords in a different position instead of just learning the neck. They are slackers. I think what dan was trying to point out is that they should be able to play without one too, and some people sadly cannot play in other keys without their help. I didn't ever like them because they always limited my range and besides I have't ever played anything where I thought a capo was really needed. There are acceptions, but most people and their capo's equal slackers who don't want to really learn their instrument. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 08/29/2005 : 9:09:45 PM
well, i can't argue with that. another one is "hot capo stew" which involves alot of fucking tapping and like 3 or 4 capos i dunno...the guy is sick. |
| JemezFoodPeople |
Posted - 08/29/2005 : 8:15:38 PM
hey dan... I do see where you're coming from with the whole capo statement, but after experiencing a different style of playing, I can't say I whole-heartedly agree. While it is a display of versatility and skill to play in any key without the capo, the fact remains that the current style of the guitar (with whatever kinds of engineering and bracing you'll find nowadays) is built to play in certain keys. It's easier to be more creative when you have instant access to specific notes (the open strings). Sometimes, the idea you have in your head just isn't in the key of A or E or G or what have you. Songs that come to mine are Kissing Lightning and Burning Angel by Danny Heines. Check these tunes out, if you have the chance-they're excellent. I wrote a tune called "Time Travel which is a capoed 12 string guitar (http://www.myspace.com/mattwinn). All feature harmonies or chords which would not sound the same on an uncapoed guitar. The same principle applies, I think, to non-standardly-tuned guitars, where we find perfect ways to ring out beautiful harmonics and multi-layered parts not normally accessible on a standardly-tuned guitar.
so, all in all, I think that because of the limitations of the guitar, the non-capo player exhibits versatility but nonetheless is not able to express some of the musical ideas allowed to players who utilize this tool.
just sayin. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 08/29/2005 : 7:49:46 PM
Zach, that's what i was saying about thinking in keys. It limits you alot and requires alot of thinking. I take the same approach as you, I learn the changes, feel them, hear the melody in my head and hopefully it comes out sounding right. It's just the tonal center approach, I guess, minus the knowing/thinking about what chord I'm on, because I usually don't. I find it much easier to play that way, solos come out alot more melodic and chaotic, and I can look at my ideas in a much different way than a fingering pattern in a key. That's not to say I dont use fingering patterns, though, I'm usually floating through some kind of arpeggio or scale or musical thought I've had before, but I just think in terms of my tonal center, if that. My teacher has been doing this shit to me and every time I come out of my lessons my brain feels like it just soaked in pure music for a week and was reinserted into my head. Basically, he'll either have me "just play" and I play completely by ear and we create some kind of jam(really fun), or he'll gimme a new song, have me play the changes a few times to get the song in my head, and then have my solo totally by ear again. It really does become a "see with your ears, hear with your eyes" thing and it's incredible doing it.
For those of you who have no idea what I was talking about, try playing in a pitch black room and play all by ear. If you plan on beign in there 15 minutes, you'll probably be in there 45 because you'll see how much effing fun it is playing like that. goddamn...now im going to do that right now cause i just inspired myself again byebye |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 08/29/2005 : 6:28:10 PM
Ya, but at some thinking key wise begins to limit you along with having to think anyway. I don't know about you, but I'm a slow thinking SOB, and I don't have time to do much thinking during a solo because it usually makes me fall on my face. When I'm walking bass lines then I have to be a thinking player, but when I'm soloing I try to do what Charlie Parker says and thats to learn the changes and then forget them. The only tunes I can really play well are the ones that I don't have to think about keys on when I'm soloing. You should see how incoherent my solos can be from reading a chart. If I really know the chart then it just frees my brain up to do more stuff.
So I don't know I guess it's still thinking, but just on a more subcocious level. Anyway just remember not to get locked into keys, because then you'll never start playing off the upper extensions and that shit is something to get in your vocabulary. It's a bitch though to learn. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 08/29/2005 : 5:31:17 PM
yeah, dan, i'd have to agree with you, there. capos seem like half-assers tools, i dunno, i just think if someone is playing music seriously, they should be creative enough and skilled enough to know what they're doing in other keys.
I don't think a great guitarist can get by thinking in solely in keys anyways, but that goes into an entirely different subject. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/29/2005 : 11:28:36 AM
i'm glad someone mentioned learning to operate in all keys. do it. there's nothing i hate worse than seeing some guy with a capo for any reason other than getting a different timbre. i'm so sick of it. instead of getting a little doohickey that changes keys for you so you don't have to learn more than 7 chords and a couple scale patterns, why don't you just try to be a good guitarist and musician and learn new chords and scales. what? are you afraid of getting better? don't want to learn new things? then i'd have to ask what you're doing with a guitar in your hand at all. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 3:33:29 PM
yes i actually do absorb music theory rectally, i put them into caplets and insert them slowly. It took some time getting used to, but now that i'm in a daily practice routine, i can absorb massive amount of theory rectally.
...
but seriosuly, the best way to learn theory is to just to always have some means of reading about/hearing about this you've never known theory-wise, and then whenever you learn something new practice it as it APPLIES to your instrument and your playing. There's no use learning what notes are in all 15 major keys unless you can play them on your instrument and know what they mean "musically." That's the hardest thing I think there is to music, is treating theory just like an American treats grammar: knowing it, but expressing freely based on those rules but breaking those rules when necessary to express exactly what is wanted.
|
| Arthen |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 12:00:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by enthuTIMsiast
quote:
Originally posted by Jorg
did you just sleep with the music books on your heads to soak it up by diffusion?
Maybe you mean osmosis...  
Osmosis, as I remember it, is only involving water...
As for the Glockenspiel I tried that, but I just got splinters. |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 2:36:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jorg
did you just sleep with the music books on your heads to soak it up by diffusion?
Maybe you mean osmosis... |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 1:56:26 PM
It's what I'm studying in college. I spend a lot of time doing musical stuff. I might try the glockenspiel method though to see if I can save some time with the same results as studying. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 07:55:20 AM
I find if you rub a glockenspiel all over your genital region, you soak up quite a thorough knowledge of music theory. Hey...I just learned the Gypsy Minor Scale!
That tab is dope though, it's a shame this guy didn't suck it up and pump out a tab for Smile or Impermanence while he was at it. Though that 7/15/05 DVD should be enough for me to tackle Impermanence finally. |
| Jorg |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 05:59:24 AM
How do you guys know so much about music? Did you take lessons or did you just sleep with the music books on your heads to soak it up by diffusion? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 08/23/2005 : 1:39:24 PM
Anytime the tri-tones are in the outer voices it makes me happy. Me and Mozart that is. He dug that. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/23/2005 : 01:37:19 AM
nothing like hot dominate chords in 4th inversion. i wouldn't be able to hear that either. i could get the function probably, but this is really above and beyond. |
|
|
