[fatherbrennan]

I just read a lesson on Steve Vai's website that was really great, and is really motivating me to hit the theory books harder and expand my knowledge. However he described what he called "basic" guitar knowledge and I must admit it seemed rather beyond basic knowledge in my experience in dealing with guitarists.
He defined basic knowledge as knowing all the major and minor scales in every position, as well as their use with each mode memorized.
Knowing the Melodic Minor and Harmonic Minor scales by heart and in every position.
Knowing the Whole Tone and Diminished scales also by heart and in every position.
Knowing 5 ways to play every major, minor, major 7th, and minor 7th chord
And have the circle of 5ths memorized.

This strikes me as a more advanced knowledge of guitar, at least these days. But maybe Im wrong and thats only my experience. I will say this, Ive been in bands for a long time and met a lot of really phenomenal guitar players, but I dont think one of them could say they had all this stuff completly memorized and could play them all fluidly from one to another on memory alone. Just curious how you all rate yourselves against this test?

I can play the major and minor scales in every position using any mode fine (not all that hard since the patterns are the same)
I can play the harmonic minor scale the same way
I know all the major, minor, and 7th chords, however not in 5 positions each. I could figure out 5 positions, but I couldnt play them on the spot from memory.
I do know the circle of 5ths.
I dont know the whole tone or diminished scales by heart.

Anyway though whether the music world would consider what he said to be "basic" knowledge or not, it has definitly inspired me to learn that stuff completly, anytime I read something about guitar that I feel like I should know but dont, it always motiviates me to really get to work on it.

[Leon]

eh, story goes that SRV couldn't even read sheet music

[Drew]

Hendrix DEFINITELY couldn't, and it drove him crazy.

I'm maybe halfway there, and could probably stand to brush up on the rest. Course, Vai's a theory nazi of sorts, so his standards are naturally quite high, lol.

-D

[Vince]

Vai = in his own little world.

Just play the fucking guitar.

[smueske]

I would actually add to the list and say that it would be helpful to know half-diminished and diminished sevenths. Not sure I understand the five positions thing. I would say that you're doing good if you can do all of the triads and the sevenths and know all of the inversions (along with the scalar and modal stuff he mentions).

And like you, I can figure the stuff out but would be hard pressed to do it on the spot. I find that there is a bit of give and take in composition. You write it, you analyze it, and then you rewrite it.

[Drew]

You know your basic open chords? I've heard guys refer to it as the CAGED system, and I've heard all sorts of mumbo-jumbo about how it's a product of the 4ths-with-a-third tuning system, but thats crap - no matter how you tune your guitar you can still build chords with roots off different strings. The basic principle, however, is sound - there are five basic chord shapes that are ebst understood from the open chords they relate to - C-shaped, A-shaped, G-shaped, E-shaped, and D-shaped chords. Your E-shaped and A-shaped bar chords are the ones everyone knows, but the others are pretty cool, too.

Remember, a bar chord is essentially making your finger a human capo, and any chord you can play without your index finger can be played as a bar, using your index finger like a capo.

I used to play with a blues/rock band at this dive back in the berkshires where we never had a set list and half the songs I didn't actually know. Every once in a while the acoustic guitarist/vocalist (don't judge him as such, though - great guy and he had a set of pipes to him) would break out a capo, and since I didn't really "know" the songs I got pretty good at holding a bar and playing open chord voicings with the rest of my fingers. It was REALLY good for the way I think about harmony.

-D

[smueske]

I'm not sure that I buy into the whole shapes thing. To me a triad is a triad is a triad. A shape is just a different way of doubling some of the notes in the triad. What's important, I think, is knowing, from any position, how to build a chord and different ways to voice that chord from that position (and it's relation to the key, etc.).

[fatherbrennan]

I agree with the "just play the guitar" mentality, since all the scale knowledge in the world wont make you a good song writer, and being a good song writer doesnt require this knowledge. I also agree that Steve is a theory nut, and as good as he is I think his concept of what is basic knowledge is pretty skewed at this point.

However I must say anytime I learn more theory it does help open my mind to more possibilities. I used to think, and I believe a lot of people have thought this, that learning theory can hinder your playing because it makes you think in terms of rules and what you can and cant do, which can stiffle the imagination. However I eventually decided to start really studying it and surprisingly it seemed to really expand my creativity and give me a lot of new ideas. I know tons of guitarists that dont know anything about this stuff, included in the list would be Dimebag. But like I said I look at it as a challenge, so I'll see if I can memorize this stuff and see how it influences my playing.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by fatherbrennan

However I must say anytime I learn more theory it does help open my mind to more possibilities. I used to think, and I believe a lot of people have thought this, that learning theory can hinder your playing because it makes you think in terms of rules and what you can and cant do, which can stiffle the imagination. However I eventually decided to start really studying it and surprisingly it seemed to really expand my creativity and give me a lot of new ideas. I know tons of guitarists that dont know anything about this stuff, included in the list would be Dimebag. But like I said I look at it as a challenge, so I'll see if I can memorize this stuff and see how it influences my playing.

I agree 115%. Guys who say "I don't want to learn theory because I don't want any rules to limit me" just kill me. I started learning theory because I was curious, really, but the deeper I got the more I saw it was less a set of "rules" than a very in-depth problem solveing toolkit to BREAK rules. Sure, diatonic theory imposes rules. But every single other theoretical concept I've run into has been a way to work around those rules.

I firmly believe that any "no theory, no rules" progression someone can put together (that sounds musical, at least, although that's relative and I'm sure you can do the same for things that don't) can be explained theoretically. In fact, I think that's so self-evident I feel stupid saying that... I even remember getting in an argument with a guy on Tabcrawler once with a guy who felt that way, and pointed to an Am progression he'd written that used both an Em and an E as an example of what he could do without theory that he couldn't do with it. As the single greatest bit of internet pwnage I've personally been responsible for, I pointed out that the substitution of a V for a v for a strogner resolution to the i has been a hallmark of classical harmony since inception, and that his "innovative" progression actually dated back approximately 500 years. Maybe not the GREATEST idea, as the guy was clearly a retard, lol, but you get the point.

-D

[fatherbrennan]

Originally Posted by Drew

I agree 115%. Guys who say "I don't want to learn theory because I don't want any rules to limit me" just kill me. I started learning theory because I was curious, really, but the deeper I got the more I saw it was less a set of "rules" than a very in-depth problem solveing toolkit to BREAK rules. Sure, diatonic theory imposes rules. But every single other theoretical concept I've run into has been a way to work around those rules.

I firmly believe that any "no theory, no rules" progression someone can put together (that sounds musical, at least, although that's relative and I'm sure you can do the same for things that don't) can be explained theoretically. In fact, I think that's so self-evident I feel stupid saying that... I even remember getting in an argument with a guy on Tabcrawler once with a guy who felt that way, and pointed to an Am progression he'd written that used both an Em and an E as an example of what he could do without theory that he couldn't do with it. As the single greatest bit of internet pwnage I've personally been responsible for, I pointed out that the substitution of a V for a v for a strogner resolution to the i has been a hallmark of classical harmony since inception, and that his "innovative" progression actually dated back approximately 500 years. Maybe not the GREATEST idea, as the guy was clearly a retard, lol, but you get the point.

-D

A very good point and reminds me of a time I was in a similar argument myself. Basically this guy was arguing that there is no need to learn theory because Dimebag knew very little and was a great metal guitarist. Though thats true, everything he did can be explained (often quite simply) using theory. Not only that but I pointed out that had Dimebag learned theory, he would have probably been even better than he already was, which is awesome. I love how you said that learning theory teaches you how to break the rules, not follow them. That is beautifully said and absolutly true, it was before I learned theory that I felt trapped not after. The more you learn about music the more you learn that the possiblities are endless and the better equipped you are to take advantage of those possibilities.