# How do you compare to Steve Vai's concept of basic music knowledge



## fatherbrennan (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

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


----------



## Drew (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Vai = in his own little world.

Just play the fucking guitar.


----------



## smueske (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

fatherbrennan said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Drew said:


> 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.


----------



## Leon (Oct 13, 2005)

desertdweller said:


> Vai = in his own little world.
> 
> Just play the fucking guitar.




yeah. some theory is good, i suppose, but you don't need a lot to write a great song.


----------



## Leon (Oct 13, 2005)

fatherbrennan said:


> How do you compare to Steve Vai's concept of basic music knowledge


on a scale where Steve Vai is 10 and Kurt Cobain is 0 (sorry, Drew  ), i'm guessing that i'm just barely a 2.


----------



## Allen Garrow (Oct 13, 2005)

Whoa... Compared to Vai,,, I would have to say I'm a musical retard. However, I do have a concept of theory, I know most of my scales and modes. I have just found that over the years I rely less on the theory and more on the ear. I do need to know more chords, that makes sense to me.

Like many have stated, just play the guitar. Learning all that stuff is great it works great as a building block. I try not to over analyze my playing, if it sounds good,,,great! Learning new scales can often open your mind to new sounds though. When ever I go back to scrub up on scales and stuff I always find new stuff and that is very rewarding.

~A


----------



## Shawn (Oct 13, 2005)

desertdweller said:


> Vai = in his own little world.
> 
> Just play the fucking guitar.



Some of the stuff he does.....


----------



## Vince (Oct 14, 2005)

2 of my favorite guitarists are Marty Friedman and the late Dimebag Darrell. Neither one knew a whole lot of theory, but both had arguably better music than Vai.

For me, I know enough theory to be dangerous, but not enough so that my life is in a textbook. I look at theory as vocabulary. You can have all the vocabulary in the world, but if you're not eloquent with it, it doesn't really matter.

So, short story long, I'd rather have the gorgeous songwriting of Marty Friedman (go pick up Dragon's Kiss, Scenes, and Introduction), than the albums that Vai has put out recently. That's my own heavily-biased opinion.


----------



## Drew (Oct 14, 2005)

I'm a huge Lynch fan, and he insists he knows very little theory, too. "Alien Love Secrets" is on the short list of albums that blew my mind, but that's about all of his I can listen to these days, yet I love virtually every single solo Lynch has ever taken. 

On the other hand, Satch definitely knows his theory cold, and I feel about him much the same as I do about Lynch.


----------



## Naren (Oct 14, 2005)

Leon said:


> on a scale where Steve Vai is 10 and Kurt Cobain is 0 (sorry, Drew  ), i'm guessing that i'm just barely a 2.



I love Nirvana, but I'd agree that Kurt Cobain's guitar playing ability would be around a 0 if Steve Vai is a 10. I would probably, like you, be around a 2 (although I've never heard your music before). I've got theory, but not NEAAAARLY as much as I should. I actually took music theory in college (not my major) and studied theory from some books. I've since forgotten a lot of what I learned, but it really helped me play and compose better. I've met "guitarists" who don't even know the names of the chords. I'd say "What chords are you playing?" and they'd be like "I don't know" I'd get irritated and say "Let me see... ok... a C minor chord, a D power chord, and an A major chord..." Always irritated me. "AT LEAST KNOW THE LETTER!"


----------



## Naren (Oct 14, 2005)

Drew said:


> On the other hand, Satch definitely knows his theory cold, and I feel about him much the same as I do about Lynch.



Satch is a theory master. He blows me away with his theory knowledge (not just his technique and playing ability which blow most people away)


----------



## telecaster90 (Oct 14, 2005)

> 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



That's what I need for basic theory knowledge, apparently. I kinda know the circle of 5ths from band. But everything else, I got.


----------



## Leon (Oct 14, 2005)

Naren said:


> Satch is a theory master. He blows me away with his theory knowledge (not just his technique and playing ability which blow most people away)


Satriani seems to be an exception to the rule, as far as knowing theory and being a very soulful player. he's just in a league of his own.


----------



## Naren (Oct 14, 2005)

Leon said:


> Satriani seems to be an exception to the rule, as far as knowing theory and being a very soulful player. he's just in a league of his own.



Mm-hm. 

Although, personally, I think Vai plays pretty soulfully, although he is, as I believe Drew said, "a theory nazi" (nothin' wrong with that).


----------



## fatherbrennan (Oct 14, 2005)

My view on Vai is good and bad. Id rather listen to a Pantera album than a Vai album any day. However I think Vai's playing, though it can be very strange, is incredibly soulful and from the heart. Its amazing to watch him play, but not because of his technique or speed really, its that the guitar is like an extension of his arm. It all looks so natural and so incredibly EASY for him. Do a video search on yahoo for "tender surrender" and watch the live video if you havent already seen it. His facial and body expressions in that video are absolutly hilarious, but if you can get past that its amazing to listen to and watch what hes playing. Its hard to describe that song (and especially the solo) beyond just saying that it is really emotional. The man and his guitar are like one entity, its pretty amazing.


----------



## nitelightboy (Oct 14, 2005)

I've found that it's not what you know, it's what you play that matters. At the end of the night, when you're trying to stuff you 29 4x12 cabs and 17 guitar cases into the trunk of your Honda Civic, the only thing people will remember is the music you wrote. They could care less about how proficient you are with theory.
Music is supposed to be fun, so as long as you're having fun playing, learning theory is just a bonus. The more you know,the more creative you can be, but it's not absolutly essential to express yourself.
Guys like Vai have a hardon for that kind of stuff and they have an uncanny ability to master it faster than almost anybody is capable of.
Just keep on rockin'


----------



## fatherbrennan (Oct 14, 2005)

nitelightboy said:


> I've found that it's not what you know, it's what you play that matters. At the end of the night, when you're trying to stuff you 29 4x12 cabs and 17 guitar cases into the trunk of your Honda Civic, the only thing people will remember is the music you wrote. They could care less about how proficient you are with theory.
> Music is supposed to be fun, so as long as you're having fun playing, learning theory is just a bonus. The more you know,the more creative you can be, but it's not absolutly essential to express yourself.
> Guys like Vai have a hardon for that kind of stuff and they have an uncanny ability to master it faster than almost anybody is capable of.
> Just keep on rockin'


----------



## Drew (Oct 14, 2005)

In short - 

I study theory because it's fun, and because its useful. 

The thing I like about Vai is he always sounds exactly like himself, much as I wish sometimes he didn't. He's doing his own thing, which is cool. 

-D


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 14, 2005)

desertdweller said:


> Marty Friedman


If i remember right, he knows a lot of how things work, theory wise but just isnt very good with written music... I'm pretty certain he knows a fair ammount, especially considering the exotic scales and whatnot in cacophony.



Drew said:
 

> 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.


the harmonic minorness of it all! \m/ 
I cant believe that. "I can put an Am and E together, you cant do that with theory" lol.


----------



## Vince (Oct 14, 2005)

HateBreeder said:


> If i remember right, he knows a lot of how things work, theory wise but just isnt very good with written music... I'm pretty certain he knows a fair ammount, especially considering the exotic scales and whatnot in cacophony.



You might be right, I just remember interviews with him about 10-15 years ago where he said he never bothered learning theory or reading music, because he just played what sounded good to his ears.

I know, it's nuts that someone who might possibly know no theory becomes a guitarist on the level of Marty Friedman, while someone who studied theory with Joe Satriani winds up playing the same wah solo 10 times an album (Hammett).

Not that I don't like Hammett, 'cause I do. I'm just making a comparison.


----------



## Shawn (Oct 14, 2005)

desertdweller said:


> 2 of my favorite guitarists are Marty Friedman and the late Dimebag Darrell. Neither one knew a whole lot of theory, but both had arguably better music than Vai.


 I love Marty Friedman, always have. Dimebag's chops were killer indeed and still are. Good call.


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 15, 2005)

desertdweller said:


> You might be right, I just remember interviews with him about 10-15 years ago where he said he never bothered learning theory or reading music, because he just played what sounded good to his ears.
> 
> I know, it's nuts that someone who might possibly know no theory becomes a guitarist on the level of Marty Friedman, while someone who studied theory with Joe Satriani winds up playing the same wah solo 10 times an album (Hammett).
> 
> Not that I don't like Hammett, 'cause I do. I'm just making a comparison.



If you ever see his Melodic control video, you'll see how he plays with chords for solo ideas. He explains how he plays a lot of notes inside chords to stick with melodies defined by chord changes,etc.. not much but you cantell he knows what hes talking about


----------



## Shawn (Oct 17, 2005)

Right now, I think Tony MacAlpine can play some serious guitar. I've heard of him way back in the day and thought to myself that he was good but forgot about him over the years. I've been rediscovering him though lately. The guy shreds. He's very jazzy (CAB, favored nations) like Eric Johnson but he is fast and metal about it. Chromaticity is awesome.


----------



## smueske (Oct 17, 2005)

Amen to the Tony Macalpine thing. Same case with me. Another guy I forgot about that just blows my mind is Greg Howe. I've always thought he was one of the best bluesy shredders around.


----------



## WayneCustom7 (Oct 17, 2005)

OK so let's say, and only because I know no theory at all, where do I start and how should I start learning about theory? Don't laugh but that's the way I learned guitar...and I've been thinking that perhaps I can push myself to the next level...hey I've learned a heck of a lot this year concerning set ups, intonnation, electronics/wiring and shit that maybe I can learn to play the guitar properly...


----------



## stuz719 (Oct 18, 2005)

Leon said:


> Satriani seems to be an exception to the rule, as far as knowing theory and being a very soulful player. he's just in a league of his own.



I had to say something here...

There is no rule about knowing theory and not playing with feeling! The two are not mutually exclusive!

That's like saying Shakespeare's writing was awful because he knew about grammar...

Music theory is a language that makes it easier to express your ideas to someone else also conversant in that language - knowing it certainly doesn't stifle your own creativity, but what it does do is enable you to grasp what other people are saying, musically, much more readily.

Think of the difference between being told "play a I-IV-V progression in D" and "uh, sort of put your fingers here and uh..."


----------



## Vince (Oct 18, 2005)

WayneCustom7 said:


> OK so let's say, and only because I know no theory at all, where do I start and how should I start learning about theory? Don't laugh but that's the way I learned guitar...and I've been thinking that perhaps I can push myself to the next level...hey I've learned a heck of a lot this year concerning set ups, intonnation, electronics/wiring and shit that maybe I can learn to play the guitar properly...



Pick up a book called "The Complete Guitarist". You can probably find it on Amazon.com really really cheap. It's the best starter/intermediate book out there, and a lot of colleges use it as a textbook for intro theory applications.

Their sections on the circle of fifths/keys and chord/scale harmony are just top-notch and explain everything in really easy to understand terms, with photos of fretboards, diagrams, and great explanations.


----------



## Naren (Oct 18, 2005)

stuz719 said:


> I had to say something here...
> 
> There is no rule about knowing theory and not playing with feeling! The two are not mutually exclusive!
> 
> ...



I agree 100%, but there seems to be this popular idea that you can have either theory or feeling, but not both. I don't happen to agree with it, but it's pretty commonly believed among rock and blues people (not really among classical, jazz, etc.) I think the people who say that are just suffering from a case of sour grapes.


----------



## fatherbrennan (Oct 18, 2005)

WayneCustom7 said:


> OK so let's say, and only because I know no theory at all, where do I start and how should I start learning about theory? Don't laugh but that's the way I learned guitar...and I've been thinking that perhaps I can push myself to the next level...hey I've learned a heck of a lot this year concerning set ups, intonnation, electronics/wiring and shit that maybe I can learn to play the guitar properly...



I definitly stand firm that learning theory is a worth while endeavor for any guitarist, and it can only make you better, never worse. Getting started in theory is probably the hardest part because its confusing to know where to begin. I started learning because I wanted to be able to write good guitar solos for the band I was in and writing every solo by ear alone with no knowledge of any theory took forever and was very frustrating. 

I knew that if I really understood the scales and how to figure out what key a song is in Id be all set. Sure enough I did a ton of studying and memorizing, figured out how to know what scales worked on what chord progressions, and when all was said and done I can now play a solo completly on the fly over any chord progression and it will sound great, because I know enough theory to figure out the songs key, and what scales (and modes) I can play over it without any of the notes sounding sour. Id start by learning the A minor pentatonic scale and then playing it over chords that will work with to see how it works. Email me at: [email protected] and I'll help you get started.


----------



## stuz719 (Oct 20, 2005)

Naren said:


> I agree 100%, but there seems to be this popular idea that you can have either theory or feeling, but not both. I don't happen to agree with it, but it's pretty commonly believed among rock and blues people (not really among classical, jazz, etc.) I think the people who say that are just suffering from a case of sour grapes.



 

Perhaps we should start a campaign to debunk this urban myth?!


----------



## fatherbrennan (Oct 20, 2005)

I think the truth is that EVERYONE learns theory whether they know it or not. The people who study theory obviously use it. The people who dont end up learning theory anyway, becuase they basically hit random notes until they find something that sounds good, or they figure out how to play what they are hearing in their head, but either way what they end up playing falls nicely onto certain scales and patterns outlined by music theory in one way or another. I think its short sighted to make a conscious decision to avoid learning music theory, because all thats going to happen is you end up learning it on your own, it just takes longer.

Music is a language. Avoiding theory and learning theory can be described in the way of language too. One person avoids going to school and taking english classes as a kid, will they end up learning the language anyway? Yes, they will just keep listening to others and trying on their own until they get it. The difference is that the person who goes to English class learns the language faster and more in depth, are better able to express themselves, etc. To say that theory limits you is rediculous, its like saying as a kid, "Im not going to english class because it will limit my ability to speak english". 

In my experience people who avoid theory do so for a few reasons. One is they dont understand it or dont know where to start. They dont have time to devote to it (say they are in a busy band and have a full time job as well). Or they consider guitar more of a hobby than something they really want to master and learning theory is something they really dont care to do. Any of those is fine, I just dont like it when they turn it around and say that they arent learning it because it will limit them or whatever, that makes no sense. The goal is to not only learn the music language but learn it so well that you are a poet. Theory opens your mind to the language and allows you to be more creative in much shorter time than without it.


----------



## Drew (Oct 20, 2005)

Great post, FB, I agree completely.


----------



## WayneCustom7 (Oct 20, 2005)

Thanks DesertDweller and FatherB! Currently I am working on JP's Rock Discipline, I will seek out said book and I'll send you an email to FB soon...


----------



## fatherbrennan (Oct 20, 2005)

Sounds like a plan my friend, Id be happy to help you get rolling with theory any way I can.


----------



## Ken (Oct 20, 2005)

I don't qualify. I don't know the harmonic minor/whole tone stuff/Diminshed stuff backward and forward. Don't care to. For that matter, I've taken Locrian out of the mix altogether. The mode has no appeal to me at all. Phrygian is as dark as I'd ever want to go.


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 20, 2005)

Locrian is friggin metal \m/ 
I've written many a badass metal rythm out of locrian


----------



## Ken (Oct 20, 2005)

If you love it, more power to you. It just isn't for me.


----------



## Shawn (Oct 21, 2005)

smueske said:


> Amen to the Tony Macalpine thing. Same case with me. Another guy I forgot about that just blows my mind is Greg Howe. I've always thought he was one of the best bluesy shredders around.


Greg Howe is awesome.


----------



## stuz719 (Oct 22, 2005)

Ken Burtch said:


> I don't qualify. I don't know the harmonic minor/whole tone stuff/Diminshed stuff backward and forward. Don't care to. For that matter, I've taken Locrian out of the mix altogether. The mode has no appeal to me at all. Phrygian is as dark as I'd ever want to go.




 

I don't like F#... sounds too much like Gb to me...

How can you take a whole mode "out of the mix altogether"? To go back to the language simile, it's like trying to communicate in English without using the letter "e". Possible, but ultimately limiting for both author and audience.


----------



## Ken (Oct 22, 2005)

stuz719 said:


> I don't like F#... sounds too much like Gb to me...
> 
> How can you take a whole mode "out of the mix altogether"? To go back to the language simile, it's like trying to communicate in English without using the letter "e". Possible, but ultimately limiting for both author and audience.



It's pretty easy really. You see, to me modes are not letters in an alphabet. They're moods and feelings. There are thousands of albums and millions of songs that don't use Locrian, yet they communicate to the listener just fine. 

To put it another way, there are many words in the English language. Do you use them all? No. In fact, I'm sure there are many words you've never used because they're so obscure. Locrian is that for me. So obscure, so full of tension that I have no use for it.

Limiting? sure. But if you've ever been around someone who talks just to talk you'd realize that limits can be a good thing.


----------



## Vince (Oct 22, 2005)

I love Locrian. It's the Metallica mode


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 22, 2005)

Ken Burtch said:


> To put it another way, there are many words in the English language. Do you use them all? No. In fact, I'm sure there are many words you've never used because they're so obscure.


Pf, your abstraction of abtruse words and their circumscribed applicability is erroneous ;p 
Superflous colloquy is gratifying.


----------



## Vince (Oct 22, 2005)

HateBreeder said:


> Pf, your abstraction of abtruse words and their circumscribed applicability is erroneous ;p
> Superflous colloquy is gratifying.



Did you write lyrics for the late 80s christian metal band Tourniquet? They had an album once called "Pathogenic Ocular Dissonance".

Figure that one out.


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 22, 2005)

desertdweller said:


> Did you write lyrics for the late 80s christian metal band Tourniquet? They had an album once called "Pathogenic Ocular Dissonance".
> 
> Figure that one out.


Virus/Bacteria related eye infection. 

I am a fan of older carcass,btw ...
"Excised and anatomised, deviscerated disarray
The torso diverged with pride
Deftly amputated, evulsed limbs now defunct" \m/


----------



## Vince (Oct 22, 2005)

Well, that's as close a guess as any 

What's with that time period? A lot of bands were trying to use terminology and language that was way over the heads of not just their audiences, but the bandmembers themselves (it seems).


----------



## dpm (Oct 22, 2005)

Late '80's, early '90s. 
You're not familiar with Carcass, Vince? Purchase "Necrotocism : Descanting the Insalubrious" and "Heartwork" immediately. That's an order!


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 22, 2005)

desertdweller said:


> Well, that's as close a guess as any
> 
> What's with that time period? A lot of bands were trying to use terminology and language that was way over the heads of not just their audiences, but the bandmembers themselves (it seems).



Death metal bands used it as opposed to straight out gore lyrics to be a bit more intelligent ;p


----------



## Ken (Oct 22, 2005)

HateBreeder said:


> Pf, your abstraction of abtruse words and their circumscribed applicability is erroneous ;p
> Superflous colloquy is gratifying.


----------



## Shawn (Oct 23, 2005)

WayneCustom7 said:


> Thanks DesertDweller and FatherB! Currently I am working on JP's Rock Discipline, I will seek out said book and I'll send you an email to FB soon...


That's a great instructional video.


----------



## Ancestor (Oct 23, 2005)

Theory is great. My playing exploded, once I started to really understand what was going on. And, it really isn't all that complicated, when you have a good teacher.

I know all that stuff you mentioned, but I mainly practice what I use. The cool thing about guitar is that once you know one mode in every position, you know them all in every position.


----------



## Shawn (Oct 23, 2005)

My brother went to GIT back in '91 with his friend. Aside from hating Hollywood, he had fun out there. When he came back, he had shitloads of books and theory. I learned what I could from those books. It's good to know theory.


----------



## Shannon (Oct 23, 2005)

Over the course of 20 years of playing, I've been exposed to plenty of theory. I learned a lot from books, magazines, & college. Here's the clincher though...I didn't spend hours memorizing fingering patterns in every position or every name to every existing scale or chord. When I find some new theory, I'll have my 15-20 minutes of study with it because it's just something new & cool to play. After that, that snippet of info just NATURALLY becomes part of my bag of tricks & I'll use it when the time is right. 

*The important thing is EAR TRAINING!!!* All of this theory doesn't mean a damn thing if you have to think about it too hard. Where's the fun in that? Eventually, you'll get to a point where you're fingers will just know where to go & how to get the desired sound. When I'm composing a solo, I don't say to myself _"I'll start with an Eb harmonic minor & then modulate up to a C# Locrian with a raised 7th & a flatted 3rd! Woohoo! Watch me go!"_  This isn't rocket science we're talking about! It's MUSIC! It's expression! At this point, my ear tells me that this particular fingering pattern or chord shape works well with the rest of the music. Even if I flub a note, I know that making a 1/2 step correction will get me back on track 99.9% of the time. Just let your ears guide you. 

I think theory actually intimidates most musicians because it's taking something small & making it way bigger than it really is. There's only 12 notes to work with. I've seen books that say _"This book has 20,000 scales & chords for guitar! Learn them all here!"_ My response to that is, _"Who the fuck needs to learn 20,000 scales & chords? And not to mention, who's gonna remember all that?"_ 

So in essence, learn SOME theory, but don't get too caught up in it. Between your ears & muscle memory, the two will eventually take over & your fingers will know where to go. It's good to have the basics down, but in the end, it's all about just playing your guitar & having FUN.


----------



## Drew (Oct 23, 2005)

Shannon said:


> I've seen books that say _"This book has 20,000 scales & chords for guitar! Learn them all here!"_ My response to that is, _"Who the fuck needs to learn 20,000 scales & chords? And not to mention, who's gonna remember all that?"_



Yeah, I hate that shit too, shannon. It's a reductionist approach to music theory as opposed to a holistic one - when you get right down to it, your major diatonic scale and all the related modes aren't 8 different scales, each in turn arranged in 15 or so different ways for a total of like 300 scales you need to learn - it's *one* scale. It's just how you choose to put the notes together and which ones you choose to emphasize. Saying that there are 20,000 scales in a certain book totally loses sight of the big picture, that a good 60% of those "scales" can be treated as one, and for me that's really the fundamental concept in music theory, that is' not the concepts but the application thereof that's really the basis of an intelligent theoretical approach to music...


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 23, 2005)

Rather than learning 20,000 scales and chords, you know what i do? I learned how to CONSTRUCT scales and chords. So if you give me a minute i can figure out entirely what i need to know...works WAY better .


----------



## Shannon (Oct 23, 2005)

HateBreeder said:


> Rather than learning 20,000 scales and chords, you know what i do? I learned how to CONSTRUCT scales and chords. So if you give me a minute i can figure out entirely what i need to know...works WAY better .



That's basically what I was getting at. Again, learn some basics to get you started & you'll start to figure the rest out naturally.


----------



## Shawn (Oct 23, 2005)

Shannon said:


> *The important thing is EAR TRAINING!!!*


 Having a good ear is a plus.


----------



## jufob (Oct 23, 2005)

Wasn't Vai rejected by RHCP who later chose Dave Navarro to fill in for a while? Just curious. Doesn't he favor the 6-string in his performances rarely and uses the 7-string? Is he more mainstream fluff trying to bogg us down with religious ritual type musical exercises or an electric warrior trying to free us from narrowly focused musical ideas? You choose...as for me I hate rules and nobody is putting me in a box. I'll jump out!!


----------



## jufob (Oct 23, 2005)

See there!! I jumped out of that box into this one...nobody told me I couldn't. Actually I meant in the above post is that "he favors the 6-string and rarely plays the 7-string in his dvd performances. How do I know this? I am a fan of Tony Macalpine trying to catch him playing that Carvin 7. He rules from the background. Gotta go the adderall is wearing off!!


----------

