# Want to learn how to sight read. Where to start.



## carvinx (Feb 7, 2016)

I have been playing guitar for 4 years and have spent time with music theory but never reading music other than tabs. I managed to read/learn a little jazz piece, but can't really sight read quickly. I mostly play heavy music, but am versatile overall with my playing. Any good sources to pick up on my sight reading? Also am looking to get some lessons in the not to distant future. Looking for some god advice.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 7, 2016)

In order to sight read (I assume standard notation), you have to be fluent in standard notation in the first place. To learn standard notation, you have to use it. This means reading and writing it. Transcribe some of your tabs into standard notation. Write new melodies in standard. Go on IMSLP, grab some random sheet music, and read it down. Do that a little bit every day, and you'll get there.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Feb 7, 2016)

After learning the notes of the fretboard, start with the easy and obvious like twinkle twinkle little star, Mary had a little lamb, then just try arpegiating easy chords, just to get your brain accustomed to it


----------



## wespaul (Feb 7, 2016)

You have to force yourself to do it every day. Like you learned how to read in school, they made you do it every day. Start with the simple things, but also challenge yourself as you go along so you can progress as fast as your discipline will allow you to. If you can get into an ensemble (either jazz or classical guitar), you'll develop the skill even faster.

There's really no shortcut to it. You have to put in the work and stick with it.

EDIT -- A good source for learning to read: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0825636795


----------



## viesczy (Feb 8, 2016)

Learning to sight read is a combination of note recognition and instrument position application. 

Are you looking to have the ability to just "see" the piece and RIP through it w/o having ever rehearsed it or just know that where the notes are on the neck as compared to the notes on the sheet? 

Derek


----------



## jack_cat (Feb 9, 2016)

carvinx said:


> Looking for some god advice.



God is busy. Let me put in my two cents worth while we're waiting for him to show. 

A little-mentioned, often ignored, aspect of sight reading - of reading staff notation in general, never mind at sight - is that it is extremely useful to already know the major scale, the harmonic minor and melodic minor scales in all keys, and beyond that to know all diatonic arpeggio and chord patterns that might be derived from the scale (also in all keys).

Whatever the key signature is, it dictates the primary use of a particular major scale. ALL "accidentals" (wierd classical technical name for what I prefer to call "inflections", i.e., sharps and flats) indicate the temporary use of some other scale pattern, type or key, but generally (leaving atonal music and extreme "outside" harmonic passages out of the picture) any sharp or flat will fall neatly into some other identifiable scale, unless it is merely a chromatic passing tone between two scale tones. 

Therefore, to look at the key signature is to immediately know the range of likely positions to be found, provided you have done your fingerboard harmony study. For instance, we see three flats: OK the primary scale is Eb Major. A quick glance through the score shows perhaps a few B-naturals: this means the C minor scale is kicking in. Or a Db: we move to the Ab major scale. 

In this place, all melodic movement is just scale steps up and down the scale of the key given in the key signature. It is possible to forget the key signature entirely and just read the intervals, using the scale and chord positions that you already know, and this is far faster in practice than thought processes that have to go through translations. 

Now, to practice sight reading: About a half an hour a day is all that I could ever do, because it's hard work and I go brain dead. But this is the practice: Whatever the material - and it doesn't matter whether it is hard or easy - take your pencil and make tic marks every four or eight bars (every two bars if the material is very tough). Play each section slowly and carefully five times. By the fifth time you should have it memorized; if not, you are taking too big a section. Then forget it and go on to the next section. 

If you sight read the whole six pages or whatever straight through direct, there is no benefit, because you do no problem solving. Whatever problem solving you do is forgotten immediately. By the 5x repetition method I present here, you are practicing solving sight reading problems on the fly. The first rep just plays the notes. The second and third reps solve the fingering problems. The fourth is a good college try at playing it right. The fifth rep is as close to good as you're going to get today, and go on to the next section, no use running one problem into the ground, we're practicing sight reading, not doing guitar technique work. 

(If you do more than 5x, then you are no longer practicing sight reading - you are learning the tune. In that case lots and lots of repetitions are in order, because 5x is a drop in the bucket. We're talking hundreds or thousands of reps. )

good luck! 
- jack


----------



## meteor685 (Feb 26, 2016)

F A C E (for the spaces)

E G B D F (for the lines)

In treble clef. All you need pretty much. I don't read a lot though, Im more of transcribing guy. Even though Frank Gambale and Steve vai say its great to learn how to read music.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Feb 26, 2016)

Does anybody know the way to Carnegie Hall?


----------



## Santuzzo (Feb 27, 2016)

Try to get your hands on simple melodies, maybe children's songs and practice finding them on different locations on the fretboard.
Next step could be playing through themes out of the Real Book (a compilation of jazz-lead-sheets consisting of melodies/themes and chord symbols to jazz standards).


----------



## Thrashman (Feb 27, 2016)

There is no fun answers or solutions sadly.

Start by learning the notes on the neck - all of them - and then incorporate that knowledge into your scales, that way you will find reading easier to learn and you will have no problems with it. Key word is PATIENCE.


----------



## Jiri Dolezal (Feb 27, 2016)

A good book for learning sight-reading is Leon White`s From Sight to Sound. It may out of print though, not sure...


----------



## JeremyRodriguez5544998 (Mar 10, 2016)

I only am good at reading music on saxophone lol. But perhaps some of those strategies I learned there can apply with guitar.

Really the biggest thing is being able to look at a group of notes as a whole and being able to read ahead, kind of how we read words. You just got to get familiar with your scalar and chord shapes and how they look on paper, so that when you see a D minor 7 arpeggio you don't have to read every single note, but rather you look at it as a whole.

Kind of hard to explain sightreading really, but this little trick helped me get through so many gigs when they pulled a song out of nowhere I had never even seen.


----------



## Rachmaninoff (Mar 10, 2016)

wespaul said:


> You have to force yourself to do it every day. Like you learned how to read in school, they made you do it every day.



Precisely this.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Mar 11, 2016)

Learn how chords are visually shaped on the pentagram.
That's the best suggestion I can give to you to make things just a tiny little bit easier.


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 11, 2016)

JeremyRodriguez5544998 said:


> perhaps some of those strategies I learned there can apply...
> 
> Really the biggest thing is being able to look at a group of notes as a whole and being able to read ahead, kind of how we read words. You just got to get familiar with your scalar and chord shapes and how they look on paper, so that when you see a D minor 7 arpeggio you don't have to read every single note, but rather you look at it as a whole.
> 
> Kind of hard to explain sightreading really, but this little trick helped me get through so many gigs when they pulled a song out of nowhere I had never even seen.


A pro speaks about strategies... because that's where the rubber meets the road with sight-reading - when you get to some gig with a folder full of tunes the band-leader gave you two weeks ago, all practiced up, and he says, Oh! We're not doing THOSE tunes today, we're doing THESE tunes and hands you a new folder... 

And this thing about shifting gears and reading in "paragraphs" is exactly right on: you have to learn to translate these visual shapes into musical shapes on the fly, and this works way better when the musical shapes fall into conventional harmonic patterns that you already know. Then there are two other aspects: (1) is this music idiomatic for the instrument you are playing? Music that is especially for some other instrument may well use chord forms you can't get at easily (those Bach unaccompanied violin sonatas for instance), and it is unreasonable to expect anyone to sight read under those conditions; (2) do you know the style so that you can intuitively anticipate what's coming up? this helps a whole lot with sight reading. And also: was this music even meant for sight-reading? A composer or arranger who is expecting you to come in and sight read his stuff had better not be piling up funny chord changes four to the measure. Some stuff just has to be studied and practiced. 

There is a funny old, possibly apocryphal story about a piece of music by Arnold Schoenberg (was it?), the great atonalist, a piece for orchestra which included a guitar part. The orchestra called up classical guitarist Jose Rey de la Torre, he looked at the part, and said "I'll need til May to practice." Well, they needed it right now, not next May, so they called up jazz guitarist Johnny Smith, who showed up for the rehearsal hung over and read the part at sight, no problem.... there is however a subtext to this story, which is that with Schoenberg's music nobody except possibly the conductor would even notice if the guitarist happened to play a wrong note, and Johnny Smith (if it was he) probably assessed this situation faster than he read the part, and probably immediately figured that if he threw some well timed s**t at the wall, it would probably stick and he'd be home free. 

Moral: if you can make something up that will fill the bill, then who needs to read the part?? But that's only if you can make it stick, which won't always happen. How special is this gig, anyway? and how special is the band leader who hired you to play? There is the question of necessity: if you need to be able to read for gigs, and you really want the gigs, you'll read, and if you don't want the paying gig that bad, or you have easier things to do, you'll go play with somebody else.

Reading ability is only one end of a spectrum of musicianship. I had a conversation with a guy whose main thing was Beatles Tribute bands - a go-to guy who specialized in George but could do Paul, John or Ringo when necessary. Naturally he had learned the repertory by ear as a teenager, and reading was not his thing. He told me that when he gets into a session and they ask him to read something, he tries to get a minute with the piano player: "Hey play me this thing a couple of times, would you please?" and then fakes it by memory. But after all, his main working thing is playing music he has known for years, and he doesn't actually need reading gigs, and figures if it's him they want, they'll give him a break and meet his reading abilities halfway. 

... jack


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 18, 2016)

jack_cat said:


> There is a funny old, possibly apocryphal story about a piece of music by Arnold Schoenberg (was it?), the great atonalist, a piece for orchestra which included a guitar part. The orchestra called up classical guitarist Jose Rey de la Torre, he looked at the part, and said "I'll need til May to practice." Well, they needed it right now, not next May, so they called up jazz guitarist Johnny Smith, who showed up for the rehearsal hung over and read the part at sight, no problem.... there is however a subtext to this story, which is that with Schoenberg's music nobody except possibly the conductor would even notice if the guitarist happened to play a wrong note, and Johnny Smith (if it was he) probably assessed this situation faster than he read the part, and probably immediately figured that if he threw some well timed s**t at the wall, it would probably stick and he'd be home free.



Serenade Op.24 (1924) - Arnold Schoenberg (1874 - 1951)

The guitar part was a problem because it was originally written in bass clef. (Webern did the same thing in some of his pieces too.) I'm not positive but I think a harpist played the guitar part for the first performances. Schoenberg knew what notes were supposed to be played I can guarantee you that, plus, he was probably conducting.


----------



## mongey (Apr 18, 2016)

I friend of mine plays a while bunch of classical instruments really well. piano , violin, cello , viola and a few more variations on each . she sight reads like a freak. I asked her once about learning and she said she got good at it when she stopped looking at the notes and thinking what they are, like "that's and F then an A then a C " , and instead looked and felt the sounds on the page . 

she see's the dot and hears the note in her head and reproduces it , not recognize what note it is then play it 

I said ok then went home and played some distorted power chords


----------



## MajorTom (Apr 19, 2016)

If you where in the U.K. I would of posted you out some guitar theory books that focus on standard music notation in relation to the guitar, it's centered around the classical guitar, but the theory is the same whether your on electric guitar, steel string acoustic guitar or nylon string classical guitar.


----------



## marcwormjim (Apr 19, 2016)

I recommend a beginner's sight-reading course, such as Alfred's Basic Guitar Method 1. By time you've finished it, you'll have the fundamentals down, and will generally feel like either going forward with level 2 or just using what you know to have a better grip on stacked-format notation-over-tabs (such as you'd find in guitar pro files). I'm concerned that approaching it with higher aspirations in-mind can lead to the easy trap of the guitar player who daydreams about their potential as a musician.


----------



## chopeth (Apr 20, 2016)

https://chantiollinmx.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/encarnacion-lopez-de-arenosa-ritmo-y-lectura-1.pdf


----------



## Drew (Apr 20, 2016)

Devil's advocate, and I'd LOVE to hear a couple counter-opinions to this; 

I don't know how much value there is in trying to become exceptionally good at sight-reading on the guitar. Couple reasons for this. 

The first is logistical - we're talking about an instrument where, for large chunks of it's range, there are six possible places (seven, for some of us) to play any particular pitch on the fretboard. Piano, sax, flute, oboe, french horn, trumpet... All of these instruments are, from a physical execution standpoint, pretty straightforward, since if you need to play the Bb two octaves above middle C, there's one way to do it. On an electric guitar, you probably have five options. You can kind of simplify as you go by just reaching for the next closest note, but that can sometimes put you into some weird fingering combinations. 

The second is functional - simply, there aren't many instances where you're handed a score you've never seen before and are required to sight-read and play a melody line. Comping through an unfamilar chord chart with chords indicated in names and slashes - absolutely. Hugely useful skill, certainly in the jazz world but in quite a large number of situations outside there. And, if later on it's your turn to solo and you want to quote the melody line, you'll probably have had a few repetitions to check it out and think about it by then. But, as a professional musician (disclaimer; I'm not), how often do you get a melody line you're expected to sight read? 

The third is related, but has a lot to do with the guitar's cannon - there isn't a hell of a lot of guitar music that's really that formally organized. Rock, blues, jazz, etc - we're all talking about genres that rely heavily on improvisation, where the guitar is either a rhythmic accompanying instrument, or taking an improvised solo. Classical you do tend to find carefully arranged and notated guitar music, but here we're talking about a level of complexity, more often than not, where you're not going to be trying to sight-read it - who in their right mind would ask a guitarist to sight-read a Paganini caprice? 

***

I'm not saying there isn't value in being able to read standard notation - far from it, it's an incredibly useful skill and is a great way to communicate ideas with other instrumentalists, and to learn new ideas. But, I don't know if it's a realistic or terribly useful skill to want to learn to sit down with an unfamiliar melody line in standard notation and rip it out in real time. Chord charts, absolutely, and knowing a ton of different ways to play or imply major 7th, minor 7th, or dominant chords all over the neck is a hugely useful skill, and one that will help you learn to sight-read a chord chart (which is mostly what you'll be doing in a jazz or pop context). But melody lines, I'm not convinced.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 21, 2016)

Drew said:


> Devil's advocate, and I'd LOVE to hear a couple counter-opinions to this;
> 
> I don't know how much value there is in trying to become exceptionally good at sight-reading on the guitar. Couple reasons for this.
> 
> ...



"Classical you do tend to find carefully arranged and notated guitar music, but here we're talking about a level of complexity, more often than not, where you're not going to be trying to sight-read it - who in their right mind would ask a guitarist to sight-read a Paganini caprice?"

I can speak for the classical music side of things. The term "sight reading" is a little bit of a misnomer. It is impossible to practice reading something you have never seen. Nobody practices reading books, they simply read books, and over time their ability to read improves. Violinists have a new piece put in front of them almost from Day One (like 3 year olds) and basically learn the instrument by reading new music all the time. (As an aside, it is the opinion of one composer, who I hold in high regard, that some string quartets from an unnamed European country become TOO good at sight reading. The memorization process never takes place and chemistry within the ensemble is never developed. The result is four individuals playing music really well and a rather lifeless performance.)

(Also, memorized music almost always results in a better performance. This is clearly evident with solo repertoire, less so in 80 piece orchestra.) 

For classical guitarists, the ability to read music at a high level pays off when they are playing in chamber/ensemble groups, especially contemporary music ensembles. Almost every ensemble I've played with has performed with full scores, not individual parts. We do this because we need to be able to follow each others parts and some of these parts are incredibly difficult to read. You might ask, "Why do you need to read each others parts?" Good question! If I play a big chord right after the saxophone plays "his squeally part" I need to know when and where the "squeally part" occurs. If the saxophone player comes in late I wait for him to play his "squeally part" because the percussionist is waiting for me to play my "big chord" before he hits his big drum and so on and so forth. Playing what is "right" while making others sound bad is much worse than playing what is "wrong" and making others sound good. 

Moral of the story: sight reading other peoples parts is invaluable if you want to play music with other people in the classical music world. The result is more friends, more money, and more fun!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 21, 2016)

Given To Fly said:


> Almost every ensemble I've played with has performed with full scores, not individual parts.



You're probably flipping pages constantly. How does that work out?


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 21, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> You're probably flipping pages constantly. How does that work out?



Sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes each person needs 3 music stands for one movement. It usually works out though.


----------



## Drew (Apr 25, 2016)

Given To Fly said:


> Moral of the story: sight reading other peoples parts is invaluable if you want to play music with other people in the classical music world. The result is more friends, more money, and more fun!



An excellent counterpoint - I hadn't considered that.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 25, 2016)

Reading is a form of communication. Reading music is a way to communicate music. Tabs are great, really, because they hold information for guitarists that scores might lack, but, then again, a well-written score has extra information that can give you every little bit of information you need to know to replicate the performance. Also, poorly written tabs don't tell you enough.

So, reading music is communication. Scores are how you can universally communicate with other western-trained musicians, regardless of instrument.

Sight reading is just being able to read the information on the page more quickly.

So "why would you want to be able to sight read?" is like "why would you want to be able to read out loud?" I guess.

Assuming you already read music, getting to read it faster is really just a matter of getting more comfortable reading it. Practice with music in front of you. Try learning lots of new pieces by reading the score. Once you are comfortable, try getting a group of other musicians together, who play recorder or flute or something, for a jam session, and then see where that leads you.

Being able to play the same note 7 places is really cool. How that interferes with how to sight read, well, as I said, some notation might tell you the position, so if there is a III at the top, and I'm expected to play a C above middle C (well, what's notated on guitar as C above middle C), you'd be safe to assume the 5th fret on the third string. If the notation doesn't say, it doesn't mean that you don't know how to play it, it just leaves interpretation, just as if you were reading a book and a character is speaking for the first time, you might read it with a British accent or an Aussie accent, not knowing which accent is supposed to be there. Or, more extremely, in Sci-fi, say, there is a character named "Xyxin." Do you think of it as <<Zik -sin>> or <<Chai-zin>> or what? Does it matter?


----------



## marcwormjim (Apr 25, 2016)

Small rant informed by teaching all ages: 

With most instruments, there's this up-front understanding that you'll need to both practice relevant, theory-derived scalar exercises, and to read music to get anywhere or even _expect_ to get anywhere.

Guitar and drums are the two instruments where you find yourself, as a teacher, banging your head against a stubborn laziness dictated by an anti-competence mentality: 

Guitarists and drummers simply "know" they're the sh_i_t, are unwilling to admit to gaps in their knowledge and, when those gaps are pointed out by any of the ample amounts of more knowledgeable musicians, they dismiss it with prejudice. Anti-intellectualism and proud ignorance is what the guitar industry is based on, and continues to mislead young musicians.

Ask a drum student if they practiced their rudiments in the last week. Ask what rudiments they even remember. Tell them to cease playing one of five beats they play incessantly while you're trying to address them, place a sheet of notation easier to play than what they were playing on a stand in front of their kit, and watch the smoke come out of their heads.

Ask a guitar student to tell you what notes they just played in their sloppy, rubato sweep lick. Ask a guitar student to tell you what notes are in the chords of the changes they're playing over. Ask them to resist playing E minor pentatonic over the changes of Little Wing, for the sake of the lesson. They'll contend with such irrelevant sentiments as "Van Halen didn't know notes." Ask them if they're Van Halen, and they don't follow your reasoning.

Point is, getting a guitarist to stop making excuses and just practice sight-reading as every other civilized instrumentalist has for the past few centuries is just the bottom of an uphill battle - You're often dealing with someone who can't come to grips with the cognitive dissonance the question "Why do you not want to know what you're doing?" summons.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 25, 2016)

marcwormjim said:


> "Why do you not want to know what you're doing?"



I'm stealing this and I'm going to use it. I have no idea when, but it will be ready when the time comes...


----------



## Drew (Apr 26, 2016)

marcwormjim said:


> Small rant informed by teaching all ages:
> 
> *stuff*




Not that I think this directed at me or intended as an attack at me (at ALL - as it happens, I agree with you)...

But, IMO, there's a difference between sight reading and reading. I can read music. I can't do it well enough to pick up a simple unfamiliar score and more or less in real time reproduce it on my guitar, but if I take the time to work it out you can hand me standard notation and I can get to the bottom of it.

I also definitely know music theory and while I don't spend much time working on reading notation these days (I'm not a professional musician so there are other things I need to study) I've got a good grasp on harmony, melody, chord construction, and the building blocks of what makes music "work." I think that stuff is awesome, and I totally agree that as a musician, you're definitely better off knowing the building blocks of your trade. 

For _me_ i see diminishing returns in spending that kind of time working on sight-reading (vs simply being able to pick up a score and learn to play the material on it - which is a similar, but not qwuite the same, skill) although for a professional gigging musician I think Given to Fly made a pretty strong case for why it can be useful. However, no questions, if you play guitar and want to get at all serious about it, definitely learn theory.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 26, 2016)

Nice point. Reading and sight reading are different skills. However, it's time for my rant now.



Drew said:


> However, no questions, if you play guitar and want to get at all serious about it, definitely learn theory.



Theory and sight reading are completely different entities. I have a pianist friend who has been working as a professional accompanist for 35 years, the guy sight reads like a beast, but his eyes glaze over the second you try to talk to him about secondary dominants. I cannot talk about theory with him, period. He sees dots on a page, and music sprouts forth from his fingertips. I've heard him improvise on my music, so it's not like he's helpless without instructions, but he prefers being told what to do.

You don't need theory to read music, nor do you need it to sight read music. You don't need it to perform. You don't need it to compose. That said, having competency in music theory can enhance your engagement with music. An interesting example: Heinrich Schenker developed reductive analysis to assist performers in making musical decisions. (You can read my thread on Schenkerian analysis, which I will return to once my workload lightens up a bit.) One of the things that Schenkerian theory does is distinguish between structural tones and salient tones. As a broad generalization, a bad performance really hammers the structural tones, a good performance plays with the salient tones. Here's a little experiment for you&#8212;play these two chords:







Play them with the same amount of attack.
Play the first one with a big accent, then the second one quietly.
Play the first one quietly, then the second one with a big accent.

Which sounds more musically nuanced to you? This is all dependent on context, specifically by what you hear as structural and what you hear as salient, but the normative model of Western common practice music generally takes the second chord as the more structural of the two. By that logic, you should dig into the first chord and pull back on the second one. Prescriptive? Maybe. It does give you more to think about than just a bunch of notes though. Do you need to be a researcher to figure out which one of those chords should be emphasized? Not at all. These are things that are more or less intuitive. Nevertheless, when entering a more complex situation where the decision isn't so clear, having a line of thinking that extends back to something basic can help you make expressive decisions.

You can sight read without any theoretical framework, but I think that you're generally going to be better off if you have an idea of where the music is going, and for that we have a descriptive language that details the mechanics of music.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 27, 2016)

marcwormjim said:


> Small rant informed by teaching all ages:
> 
> With most instruments, there's this up-front understanding that you'll need to both practice relevant, theory-derived scalar exercises, and to read music to get anywhere or even _expect_ to get anywhere.
> 
> ...



Ugh. If you spend all your time chasing technical and theoretical proficiency, when are you supposed to play and make music?

I thought music was art.


----------



## Joe Harvatt (Apr 27, 2016)

This has been a good book, when I've been disciplined enough to use it.






https://www.amazon.co.uk/Music-Reading-Guitar-Complete-Essential/dp/0793581885


----------



## bostjan (Apr 27, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Ugh. If you spend all your time chasing technical and theoretical proficiency, when are you supposed to play and make music?
> 
> I thought music was art.



I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

Music is music, first and foremost. You can nerd out on it and come up with cool stuff, or you can bang away and come up with cool stuff. The odds of coming up with cool stuff increase with the level of understanding, but it's not a requisite.

Analogy, not all professionally trained scientists make important discoveries, and not all important discoveries are made by professionally trained scientists, but the more professional training a scientist has, the higher the odds of making an important discovery.

Another analogy, not all painters are trained in painting techniques. Not all famous paintings are made by trained painters. But, a painter's odds of painting a famous painting increase with learning more composition techniques.

But certainly, sitting around talking about how important music theory is or is not does not help the chances at all.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 27, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I think you are missing the forest for the trees.
> 
> Music is music, first and foremost. You can nerd out on it and come up with cool stuff, or you can bang away and come up with cool stuff. The odds of coming up with cool stuff increase with the level of understanding, but it's not a requisite.
> 
> ...



If the odds of coming up with cool stuff (which I define as stuff I like to listen to) increases with the level of understanding, then the artists I like to listen to should on average be the ones with the highest level of understanding... Hmmmm... *looking over my playlists*... Uh, no? That can't be right... On the other hand, I can go to youtube right now and look up a hundred way more skilled musicians, who know way more music theory and who can sight-read like mothafu'as, but I would never listen to their music. So maybe it's not as simple as you make it seem.


----------



## Drew (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Ugh. If you spend all your time chasing technical and theoretical proficiency, when are you supposed to play and make music?
> 
> I thought music was art.



There's always that one guy who thinks theory is pointless in a conversation...  

Listen, you can write great music without knowing theory. And you can be a theory god, and write really ....ty music too. But the former is a matter of luck, while the latter is a lack of having anything meaningful to say. 

You don't have to like it, but certainly having a good understanding of how music fits together makes writing music a lot_ easier_, and gets you results with a lot less fumbling around. A lot of people look at theory as a bunch of "rules" and see it as constrictive, but the reality is anything but - it's more like a really good toolkit that can help you with a lot of different problem solving approaches. 

And, if you think the blind fumbling is the point, and that's what makes good music... Well, if you're telling me that great music is always going to be the result of a bunch of clueless guys getting lucky, then I'll tell you that if you're right, it's the only art form in the world where that's true. 

Knowing theory is only part of what it takes to be a great creative musician, and there are other things (notably, creativity) that may be a lot more important... But, you're never going to be better off NOT knowing theory and having good technique.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> If the odds of coming up with cool stuff (which I define as stuff I like to listen to) increases with the level of understanding, then the artists I like to listen to should on average be the ones with the highest level of understanding... Hmmmm... *looking over my playlists*... Uh, no? That can't be right... On the other hand, I can go to youtube right now and look up a hundred way more skilled musicians, who know way more music theory and who can sight-read like mothafu'as, but I would never listen to their music. So maybe it's not as simple as you make it seem.



Like who?! Give me some examples if you want to convince me.

All I have to go off is your avatar, which depicts Blind Guardian, who are more than competent in music theory.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

Drew said:


> There's always that one guy who thinks theory is pointless in a conversation...
> 
> Listen, you can write great music without knowing theory. And you can be a theory god, and write really ....ty music too. But the former is a matter of luck, while the latter is a lack of having anything meaningful to say.
> 
> ...



I don't think music theory is pointless. And I have never said that. Why would I even be in this sub-forum if I thought that?

The question is what is beneficial for a person to spend his or her time on. Obviously that varies from person to person, based on personal goals and preferences. The only reason I even posted in this thread to begin with was because I didn't agree with the post I quoted, which pushed strongly for one certain perspective and seemed to disregard other views as an "anti-competence mentality". I thought that was seeing only one side of things.

I do know and use music theory. But I don't think it's everything and I think it's up to everyone to decide for themselves just how important it is FOR THEM.



bostjan said:


> Like who?! Give me some examples if you want to convince me.
> 
> All I have to go off is your avatar, which depicts Blind Guardian, who are more than competent in music theory.



The only BG album I like and listen to is Battalions of Fear.

And look, this is just my personal opinion. Other people might listen to a lot of progressive stuff made by people who know loads of theory. I'm mostly into thrash and hardcore stuff, where I think theory knowledge isn't generally as high and also not as important. It all depends on who you are, what music you like and what you want to achieve. But I think more theory knowledge doesnt necessarily => better music. Many times I think people would be better off learning creativity instead.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> The only BG album I like and listen to is Battalions of Fear.
> 
> And look, this is just my personal opinion. Other people might listen to a lot of progressive stuff made by people who know loads of theory. I'm mostly into thrash and hardcore stuff, where I think theory knowledge isn't generally as high and also not as important. It all depends on who you are, what music you like and what you want to achieve. But I think more theory knowledge doesnt necessarily => better music. Many times I think people would be better off learning creativity instead.



So still, the only specific example I have to go on is contrary to your point.

Plenty of thrash and hardcore musicians know tons of theory, too, so I have no idea where you are coming from.

"Learning creativity?" Seriously?


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

bostjan said:


> So still, the only specific example I have to go on is contrary to your point.
> 
> Plenty of thrash and hardcore musicians know tons of theory, too, so I have no idea where you are coming from.
> 
> "Learning creativity?" Seriously?



Yeah, well, you don't have to agree.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 28, 2016)

What does "learning creativity" entail?


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> What does "learning creativity" entail?



I guess engaging in creative activites. Creating things. Working on the creative process. Maybe practising writing music, or jamming with your friends.


----------



## Varcolac (Apr 28, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> What does "learning creativity" entail?



One of those annoying education buzzword phrases that makes real educators like me (who're busy teaching theory and content) insufferably angry. Creativity in any field is a byproduct of knowledge of that field, not some separate mystical doctrine that can be taught on its own.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> What does "learning creativity" entail?



Maybe: "Instead of playing A lydian, I mean, (A B C# D# E F# G#), er, I mean, this fret, that fret, this fret, and that fret over there, over that Am Dm Em progression, try creatively using A natural minor, er, (A B C D E F G), I mean, notes that sound good."  Or, maybe more succinctly just slapping the lead guitar player until he plays his solo in the right key, but through trial and error, you know, instead of having him learn which notes do what in a key.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

Varcolac said:


> One of those annoying education buzzword phrases that makes real educators like me (who're busy teaching theory and content) insufferably angry. Creativity in any field is a byproduct of knowledge of that field, not some separate mystical doctrine that can be taught on its own.



Be angry all you want. Doesn't make me agree with you any more.



bostjan said:


> Maybe: "Instead of playing A lydian, I mean, (A B C# D# E F# G#), er, I mean, this fret, that fret, this fret, and that fret over there, over that Am Dm Em progression, try creatively using A natural minor, er, (A B C D E F G), I mean, notes that sound good."  Or, maybe more succinctly just slapping the lead guitar player until he plays his solo in the right key, but through trial and error, you know, instead of having him learn which notes do what in a key.



Yeah or maybe not.

Look, if people want to learn theory until they're blue in the face, that's fine by me. Maybe that's totally right for them. FOR THEM. Like, because we're all like... different and stuff. Anyway, I feel like I'm communicating with a wall right now, so idk...


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Yeah or maybe not.
> 
> Look, if people want to learn theory until they're blue in the face, that's fine by me. Maybe that's totally right for them. FOR THEM. Like, because we're all like... different and stuff. Anyway, I feel like I'm communicating with a wall right now, so idk...



IDK man, I'm sure we both feel that way. I guess I'm mostly stuck on a few things you said like:



gnoll said:


> If the odds of coming up with cool stuff (which I define as stuff I like to listen to) increases with the level of understanding, then the artists I like to listen to should on average be the ones with the highest level of understanding... Hmmmm... *looking over my playlists*... Uh, no? That can't be right...



And I respond by asking for some examples, and this is your response:



gnoll said:



> I think more theory knowledge doesnt necessarily => better music. Many times I think people would be better off learning creativity instead.



I genuinely feel like I'm trying to get somewhere in this discussion, and, to me, it feels like I'm not getting any new information from you that I can digest. Maybe I misunderstand you or maybe the topic is just too frustrating for you, but the impression I'm coming away with is that I'm looking for a specific example of something and only hearing you repeat that your opinion is right and mine is wrong because you are convinced because reasons. I'm sure your take on what I'm trying to say is having a similar impression.

I guess if you could name an artist that made some awesome music and then learned music theory and suddenly lost creativity and drive, then I'd have to admit, at least, that more music theory does not necessarily improve writing.

I'll counter with some examples of theory monsters who are incredibly creative:

Matthias IA Eklundh
Ron Jarzombek
Joe Satriani
Steve Vai

And then I'll try to make an argument on your behalf: Django Reinhardt, IMO, one of the most creative and talented guitarists ever born, was illiterate, and thus, I assume, could not read music. I don't know if he knew what any chords were called or ever worked out how they would fit together by any way other than trial and error. Assuming he knew nothing about music theory, and simply sat down and played (from anecdotes that have survived, this seems to be the case), he could be used as an example of theory does not make you better, since, well, who was better than him? But...then again, a great deal of Django's stuff was influenced by American Jazz greats of the early 20th century, who, typically, used a great deal of music theory to come up with cool stuff, which Django picked up by ear and melded with melodies from other instruments and traditional Romani music.

Maybe I'll start a new thread for the tangent discussion here: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/mu...1-famous-musicians-who-didnt-know-theory.html


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

bostjan said:


> IDK man, I'm sure we both feel that way. I guess I'm mostly stuck on a few things you said like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, now it feels like you're actually making an effort to have a discussion, so I will try my best to do the same.

Out of the four people you bring up, the only ones I know are Satriani and Vai and, while I'm really not that familiar with their music, it just isn't very interesting to me. I know that there are many guitar players like that, who are really really GOOD at what they do, both in terms of knowledge and skill on the instrument. But players like that just don't interest me that much. I just don't really like the music they play. I know a lot of other people do, however, which is why I'm trying to stress how individual these things are.

I grew up on stuff like Metallica and Slayer. And I'm thinking, what if those guys had known as much theory as Vai and Satriani? Would we have Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, Show no Mercy or Reign in Blood? Would those albums be the same? Would I like them as much as I do? I just don't think so.

Recently I've been listening more to hardcore and metalcore stuff. And then I've read things like this:

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/new...lpful_in_learning_to_play_when_i_started.html

(Search for "theory" with ctrl+f.)

Personally, I'm not much of a guitar player. I'm not good at playing because I don't practise much. But I also don't necessarily *want* to be a fantastic guitar player. I just think my time is better spent writing music rather than practising. That's what I think is more fun and that's what I think makes my songs better. And it's similar with music theory. I know the basics and it helps for what I do. I wouldn't mind knowing more but I think I get more benefit out of using what I do know to just sit down and write music and hone that particular skill.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Ok, now it feels like you're actually making an effort to have a discussion, so I will try my best to do the same.
> 
> Out of the four people you bring up, the only ones I know are Satriani and Vai and, while I'm really not that familiar with their music, it just isn't very interesting to me. I know that there are many guitar players like that, who are really really GOOD at what they do, both in terms of knowledge and skill on the instrument. But players like that just don't interest me that much. I just don't really like the music they play. I know a lot of other people do, however, which is why I'm trying to stress how individual these things are.
> 
> ...



The guys in Metallica used lots of music theory writing that stuff. Surf around for some of Kirk's old interviews from that period of time. I don't know anything about Slayer's knowledge of music theory, but I'don't say their songwriting is generally not considered as good as Metallica's.

I honestly don't know how you can write music without, well, reading first.

As far as August Burns Red, I really am not as familiar with them as the other two bands you mentioned, but, although they sound good, I wouldn't think it'does be fair to consider them top innovators in songwriting.

I certainly think you can make a career in music without knowing anything about theory, but I still think the examples you gave just further lead a person to believe that it doesn't hurt.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

bostjan said:


> The guys in Metallica used lots of music theory writing that stuff. Surf around for some of Kirk's old interviews from that period of time. I don't know anything about Slayer's knowledge of music theory, but I'don't say their songwriting is generally not considered as good as Metallica's.
> 
> I honestly don't know how you can write music without, well, reading first.
> 
> ...



James doesn't know music theory afaik and he wrote most of the music. I remember seeing him talk about Nothing Else Matters and he didn't even know which notes he was playing.

And I don't really know what you mean when you say "considered". This is the music I like. Me. Because music is a subjective thing.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> I guess engaging in creative activites. Creating things. Working on the creative process. Maybe practising writing music, or jamming with your friends.



These are all great. However, it is my experience that creativity requires content at some level. That content may or may not be informed by any sort of formal study of music, but at some point there is intention. The notes that you play are part of some conscious process, even if your process is "throw guitar off cliff and see what sound it makes." Those conscious processes are very often informed by habits that play into taste. Check this out:

Steve Reich - Pendulum Music


I wouldn't describe this music in the same way that I would describe something more traditional like deathcore, but if you asked me "How do you get this sound?," then I can describe it in terms of the process. That one is easy, because there are only a handful of conscious decisions to be made: how many microphones you're going to use, how high the "performers" lift the microphones, when the performers release the microphones, and the conditions for ending the piece.

This song contains many more conscious decisions:

Kreator - Material World Paranoia


We can still talk about the processes that go into each and every single word and note. These things exist in the mind of the artist, even if it's a thought like "5th fret, G string." There are simple observations, like how the intro and chorus basically use the same music (the difference being that the chorus is texted). There are more detailed observations, like how the chorus and the guitar solo both end with &#9837;II5. If I liked what was going on at the end of the chorus, then I might make the decision to use that chord. Conversely, if I was writing a song and realized that it sounded too close to the other song, then I might look to see if there are patterns that I could change to be more original.

This is a real thing. Prince asked Jonathan Cain for permission to release Purple Rain because he heard a lot of similarity in the phrasing and chord progression when compared to the song Faithfully and didn't want to get sued.

Journey - Faithfully


You've internalized a lot of musical language simply by being out in the world. Whether you like it or not, there are patterns in music because people have to make decisions in order to make music. Artists absolutely should exercise creativity, but creativity and pattern recognition are not antithetical by any means.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> James doesn't know music theory afaik and he wrote most of the music. I remember seeing him talk about Nothing Else Matters and he didn't even know which notes he was playing.
> 
> And I don't really know what you mean when you say "considered". This is the music I like. Me. Because music is a subjective thing.



Funny, since James had taken several years of piano lessons before taking guitar lessons.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Recently I've been listening more to hardcore and metalcore stuff. And then I've read things like this:
> 
> https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/new...lpful_in_learning_to_play_when_i_started.html
> 
> (Search for "theory" with ctrl+f.)




From the article:

"Even like learning basic open chords, that wasn't something I ever had anyone teach me, I learned those through tab sites like yours. People would post tabs of chord shapes and then I'd notice that those chords were used in like a million other songs, I better learn that one."

I'm not seeing your point. Here is this guy admitting that he saw a pattern and made a conscious decision to learn the pattern. And here he's doing the same thing with genre, timbre, and sectional form:

"Yes, that's true. I think it allows you to think a little differently in terms of melodies and guitar lines that might not be traditionally metal. I think it also allows for us to get more creative with our clean interlude type sections, basically the 'not metal' parts that we play. We did much more of that sort of thing on our last two records and those end up being my favorite parts to play because they are so different than the run of the mill heavy metal stuff that you would come to expect from this genre."

"There's a western section in the song 'Majoring in the Minors' - it's unlike anything we've ever done before. I'm sure some people think it's completely random and makes no sense but I view it as a very progressive part of a very progressive song and I'm excited about that."

There's a clear pattern of appropriation and ironic juxtaposition that reflects the stated values of difference and intertextuality.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Funny, since James had taken several years of piano lessons before taking guitar lessons.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa3RMM0RoKQ

Go to 40 minutes in.

Like, what do you want me to say? It seems like you're just dead set on disagreeing and that's that.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 28, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> These are all great. However, it is my experience that creativity requires content at some level. That content may or may not be informed by any sort of formal study of music, but at some point there is intention. The notes that you play are part of some conscious process, even if your process is "throw guitar off cliff and see what sound it makes." Those conscious processes are very often informed by habits that play into taste. Check this out:
> 
> Steve Reich - Pendulum Music
> 
> ...






Mr. Big Noodles said:


> From the article:
> 
> "Even like learning basic open chords, that wasn't something I ever had anyone teach me, I learned those through tab sites like yours. People would post tabs of chord shapes and then I'd notice that those chords were used in like a million other songs, I better learn that one."
> 
> ...



Okay, I _think _I sort of see your point, but I don't really get how it applies here. Making conscious choices with regards to your music doesn't equate knowing music theory. My point in regards to the ABR interview was that he didn't know much music theory, it wasn't that he didn't make conscious choices when he made music. I don't get how that relates... Somehow you always have to make a choice of what notes to include in your music, don't you?


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa3RMM0RoKQ
> 
> Go to 40 minutes in.
> 
> Like, what do you want me to say? It seems like you're just dead set on disagreeing and that's that.



The video is blocked in the USA for some reason.

Here's an interview where James mentions studying piano when younger: Metallica Week: James Hetfield on down-picking and playing live | MusicRadar


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 28, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Okay, I _think _I sort of see your point, but I don't really get how it applies here. Making conscious choices with regards to your music doesn't equate knowing music theory.
> 
> My point in regards to the ABR interview was that he didn't know much music theory, it wasn't that he didn't make conscious choices when he made music. I don't get how that relates...



Sadly, the interview is blocked for me. I'll try to find it somewhere else.

The question I ask you: what is music theory?

I posit that it is a system of describing music. Nothing says that you have to write music that satisfies an existing model, even though that happens too. Let's say that we take 100 songs that begin on the same chord&#8212;let's call it $&#8212; and after four bars, 38% of them have another chord, &, and another other 34% have a different chord, @, while the rest are something else. Isn't is reasonable to say that we are dealing with two models that each represent a chunk of this sample pool, plus some deviations?

Model 1: $ &
Model 2: $ @
Deviations: $ (something else)

I'm not saying that this is how all music is, or that there are not exceptions. I'm not even supposing that any of those artists decided that they would make a '$ &' or '$ @' song, just that the pattern _does_ exist.

Here's a real world example: Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were phenomenal innovators of sonata form. If you told this to any of them, they would ask, "What's sonata form?" We invented terminology later on to describe what they were doing. Rarely does the terminology come first (i.e., a prescriptive model). People continued to write sonata form music long after Beethoven et al. If you told any of _those_ people that they were using a medial caesura (MC) at the ending of the transition to the second theme, there is no way in hell that they would know what you're talking about unless they were very recent. Those terms were coined by James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy in 2006 to describe something that happens with incredible frequency in sonata form music. Those artists did not need the theory (which came much later) in order to write the music with those patterns; it happened and then somebody noticed, "Hey, there's a pattern here."

The intention of the artist does not have to match our description of the art. You could get up on stage, fully intending to nail a shreddy solo, but if you pull a Nick Jonas, I don't think it is inappropriate to describe the result as "It sucked."



> Somehow you always have to make a choice of what notes to include in your music, don't you?


Right. The descriptive model of music theory then asks whether there is a pattern behind all those innumerable choices. Simply describing the items that are there is the most basic level, and usually that's pretty satisfactory. The next level would be to ask why why those choices were made. There is not a whole lot of analytical literature that deals with this as far as I know (maybe musicologists deal with this), and it says something different from simply describing what is going on in the music, but it can be informative to know that X pop artist's song all contain the same three chords because they only know three chords. As soon as we start to guess a composer's intentions, we run into problems and it becomes difficult to use a descriptive system alone to substantiate those sorts of claims. You usually need something else to support a link between intention and actualization, such as an interview where they say "I used X musical device to represent Y emotion/thing."


----------



## Andrew May (Apr 29, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Many times I think people would be better off learning creativity instead.




I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but I lolled so hard at this!



marcwormjim said:


> "Why do you not want to know what you're doing?"



I know it shouldn't take simple statements like this to make a 32yr old think hard about what they're doing but thanks! I've never really thought about it like this before. I've ruminated plenty over the years about whether to learn theory properly, I guess I really should.  D'oh


----------



## Drew (Apr 29, 2016)

I mean, I just assumed you were trolling.  



gnoll said:


> I grew up on stuff like Metallica and Slayer. And I'm thinking, what if those guys had known as much theory as Vai and Satriani? Would we have Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, Show no Mercy or Reign in Blood? Would those albums be the same? Would I like them as much as I do? I just don't think so.



Funny you mention early Metallica. You're aware Hammett was taking lessons from Satriani back then, when they were writing for Ride the Lightning, and would often bring in riffs the band was working on, and Satriani would help him write solos for the solo sections, right? That they'd talk about what scales and modes would work over certain sections, which would convey which sort of a feel and mood, what notes would be particularly effective, etc?


----------



## gnoll (Apr 29, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Sadly, the interview is blocked for me. I'll try to find it somewhere else.
> 
> The question I ask you: what is music theory?
> 
> ...



Well, alright, I'm not really disagreeing with this, but it doesn't seem like you're really disagreeing with what I'm saying either, more that you have a wider definition of theory.



Drew said:


> Funny you mention early Metallica. You're aware Hammett was taking lessons from Satriani back then, when they were writing for Ride the Lightning, and would often bring in riffs the band was working on, and Satriani would help him write solos for the solo sections, right? That they'd talk about what scales and modes would work over certain sections, which would convey which sort of a feel and mood, what notes would be particularly effective, etc?



Sure I knew Hammett took lessons from Satriani, but not details of what they were talking about.

Anyway, I just dug out my old Metallica cd's and looked up the writing credits on RTL. Hammett is only credited for Fade to Black, Trapped Under Ice, Escape and Creeping death. And he's last in the list for all of them. On Creeping Death I know he wrote the middle part riff (the "die by my hand" riff) but that was a riff he wrote way back when he was in Exodus.

As for the solos, sure ok, but those were never what made me like the albums as much as I do. I like Slayer's solos about equally as much, and those guys never took lessons from Satriani afaik...


----------



## Drew (Apr 29, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Sure I knew Hammett took lessons from Satriani, but not details of what they were talking about.
> 
> Anyway, I just dug out my old Metallica cd's and looked up the writing credits on RTL. Hammett is only credited for Fade to Black, Trapped Under Ice, Escape and Creeping death. And he's last in the list for all of them. On Creeping Death I know he wrote the middle part riff (the "die by my hand" riff) but that was a riff he wrote way back when he was in Exodus.
> 
> As for the solos, sure ok, but those were never what made me like the albums as much as I do. I like Slayer's solos about equally as much, and those guys never took lessons from Satriani afaik...



Well, clearly the guys in Metallica thought theory was important enough tto warrant all that effort - Hammett talks about how he didn't have a car so he used to bike 25 miles each way to study with Joe.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 29, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Well, alright, I'm not really disagreeing with this, but it doesn't seem like you're really disagreeing with what I'm saying either, more that you have a wider definition of theory.



I think we're talking past each other here. I actually think that my definition is a lot more narrow than yours because it only encompasses making observations about the music, whereas you include compositional strategies and artistic intent under the same umbrella. In other words, I say that theory is something that analysts create after the fact (and it may have absolutely nothing to do with how the artist is thinking) and you say that theory is something that the artist has to have in mind before/during writing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 29, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Well, alright, I'm not really disagreeing with this, but it doesn't seem like you're really disagreeing with what I'm saying either, more that you have a wider definition of theory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it's safe to say that, in general, users are disagreeing with the sentiment that bands who know some music theory aren't as interesting as those who know zero music theory. So far it seems it's established that one of the bands you mentioned plus the band in your avatar know some music theory and the other band you mentioned, know one really knows one way or the other, so, well, to put it into plain language it doesn't seem like there's much to really agree with at this point, although it's stated as opinion, the basis for it was some facts that so far aren't really checking out, save for a video it seems none of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean can see (even if I posted an interview with some contrary information - it could be that James was wrong in one case or the other).

Coming back to your point, or perhaps what I incorrectly interpreted as your point, to shut up and play yer guitar, I agree. Unfortunately I can't play my guitar at work, but it's Friday afternoon and I'll be heading out to a gig soon. It'd be interesting to have a sort of jam session with you to see how well we could communicate musically without words.


----------



## n4t (Apr 29, 2016)

When folks mention Metallica, they know that Cliff Burton was a Berkeley music school graduate, right?


----------



## Drew (Apr 29, 2016)

Yeah, let's take a giant step back here, realize we've already gone dangerously off topic from the original question on sight reading, and simply observe the following: 

There are PLENTY of highly-trained musicians that have written simple, catchy, popular, "creative" music. Paul Gilbert penned a MASSIVE pop hit with Mr. Big, Steve Vai was a contributing member of David Lee Roth's band, say what you will about her music Lady Gaga was a Berklee-trained performer, as was Cliff Burton (which I actually didn't know). Very highly "educated" musicians have written simple music that speaks to whole boatloads of people. 

On the other side of the coin, we've all sat through a bunch of really, really, really bad original bands whose members didn't want to "limit" themselves with theory, and still churned out junk. 

I think it's pretty safe to say that there's an incredibly low correlation between technical aptitude and theoretical knowledge, and creative/writing ability.  It doesn't hurt to learn, but it also won't save you from yourself.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 29, 2016)

n4t said:


> When folks mention Metallica, they know that Cliff Burton was a Berkeley music school graduate, right?



Source? Also, do you mean Berklee? I suppose that it could have been Berkeley, seeing as they are from California, but I kind of doubt that he did an undergrad music program at a research university. It would be cool if he did, but I'm thinking that a private music school like Berklee, GIT (where Paul Gilbert went), or MI is more likely.



Drew said:


> I think it's pretty safe to say that there's an incredibly low correlation between technical aptitude and theoretical knowledge, and creative/writing ability.  It doesn't hurt to learn, but it also won't save you from yourself.




It's kinda like truck driver lingo. "Breaker one-niner, this is Sassy Steve." "10-10, Sassafras." "We got a dung beetle blocking the Big Dig going into Beantown. Best take the minor-seven-flat-five 'round 93, 4-10." "That's a big 10-4 on the mixolydian-flat-sixer, over."


----------



## n4t (Apr 29, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Source? Also, do you mean Berklee? I suppose that it could have been Berkeley, seeing as they are from California, but I kind of doubt that he did an undergrad music program at a research university. It would be cool if he did, but I'm thinking that a private music school like Berklee, GIT (where Paul Gilbert went), or MI is more likely.


 
GIT is also where Jeff Loomis went. 

You know, I swear I read the Berklee thing in a Metal mag some 15 years ago. I can't find much now, except a few references that he was a classically trained pianist.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 29, 2016)

Drew said:


> Well, clearly the guys in Metallica thought theory was important enough tto warrant all that effort - Hammett talks about how he didn't have a car so he used to bike 25 miles each way to study with Joe.



I think you're confusing "the guys in Metallica" with Kirk Hammett.



Mr. Big Noodles said:


> I think we're talking past each other here. I actually think that my definition is a lot more narrow than yours because it only encompasses making observations about the music, whereas you include compositional strategies and artistic intent under the same umbrella. In other words, I say that theory is something that analysts create after the fact (and it may have absolutely nothing to do with how the artist is thinking) and you say that theory is something that the artist has to have in mind before/during writing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Okay. But see, if you say that theory can include things that whoever uses it doesn't even need to have a clue about, then how is that not a broader definition? To me, it totally is. Because that would mean that EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES in music is theory, simply because in some way it can be observed and described. Isn't that, if anything, a broad definition?

And I'm not really even sure where you got the stuff about compositional strategies and artistic intent from.



bostjan said:


> I think it's safe to say that, in general, users are disagreeing with the sentiment that bands who know some music theory aren't as interesting as those who know zero music theory. So far it seems it's established that one of the bands you mentioned plus the band in your avatar know some music theory and the other band you mentioned, know one really knows one way or the other, so, well, to put it into plain language it doesn't seem like there's much to really agree with at this point, although it's stated as opinion, the basis for it was some facts that so far aren't really checking out, save for a video it seems none of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean can see (even if I posted an interview with some contrary information - it could be that James was wrong in one case or the other).
> 
> Coming back to your point, or perhaps what I incorrectly interpreted as your point, to shut up and play yer guitar, I agree. Unfortunately I can't play my guitar at work, but it's Friday afternoon and I'll be heading out to a gig soon. It'd be interesting to have a sort of jam session with you to see how well we could communicate musically without words.



But, but.... how can people even disagree with something I haven't said??????

I never said "bands who know some music theory aren't as interesting as those who know zero music theory". It's a matter of HOW MUCH music theory is beneficial to learn for oneself depending on who one is. But you just love to put words in my mouth and ignore what I actually say. It seems like you're so set on trying to somehow prove me wrong that you don't read my posts or atleast you don't understand them.

Now, I will try to put this simply so you can understand:

1) I don't advocate for everyone to not know ANY music theory. I don't think that's the best way to go for most musicians.

2) I do however think that, spending a lot of your time learning more music theory isn't NECESSARILY ALWAYS the best USE OF YOUR TIME. But it DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE and WHAT YOUR GOALS ARE.

3) I know music theory myself. Not insane amounts of it but I know and understand major and minor scales, chords, chord progressions, modes, the circle of fifths, key signatures, time signatures, rhythm, musical notation, etc.

4) I value music theory. I find it very useful in what I do.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 30, 2016)

gnoll said:


> If the odds of coming up with cool stuff (which I define as stuff I like to listen to) increases with the level of understanding, then the artists I like to listen to should on average be the ones with the highest level of understanding... Hmmmm... *looking over my playlists*... Uh, no? That can't be right... On the other hand, I can go to youtube right now and look up a hundred way more skilled musicians, who know way more music theory and who can sight-read like mothafu'as, but I would never listen to their music. So maybe it's not as simple as you make it seem.



I took this to mean that you disagreed with my statement that theory was not a requisite for making cool music, but that it helped your chances.

Then I took everything you said between then and your last post to reinforce that.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 30, 2016)

gnoll said:


> Okay. But see, if you say that theory can include things that whoever uses it doesn't even need to have a clue about, then how is that not a broader definition? To me, it totally is. Because that would mean that EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES in music is theory, simply because in some way it can be observed and described. Isn't that, if anything, a broad definition?



I suppose, yeah. I'm saying that theory is the description, not the application. There is also a degree of generalization that happens. Hopefully, our observations help us to understand music a bit better.

I'll add that, in a scientific sense, a theory has to be testable. Depending on how you look at it, this can get hairy with music.



> And I'm not really even sure where you got the stuff about compositional strategies and artistic intent from.


From other statements that you have made in this thread, I gather that you think that some bands "use theory" while others do not:



gnoll said:


> And look, this is just my personal opinion. Other people might listen to a lot of progressive stuff made by people who know loads of theory. I'm mostly into thrash and hardcore stuff, where I think theory knowledge isn't generally as high and also not as important. It all depends on who you are, what music you like and what you want to achieve. But I think more theory knowledge doesnt necessarily => better music. Many times I think people would be better off learning creativity instead.



The implication I am hearing from you is that, in certain styles, theory knowledge influences writing. In others, it does not. Therefore, at some level or another, somebody had to make a decision to either "use theory" or "not use theory." The musician is employing a strategy in either situation, particularly if they are saying "I don't need theory, let's get drunk and dime the gain so my wife gets angry."

It's just a funny prospect for me to think about, because the music happens one way or the other. Actual music theory to me is akin to this:







It's research, observations, and statistics. Even if you don't "use it," the data is still there to be picked over. Making evidence-based compositional decisions is something wholly different from gathering data on an existing corpus of music.


----------



## gnoll (Apr 30, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I took this to mean that you disagreed with my statement that theory was not a requisite for making cool music, but that it helped your chances.
> 
> Then I took everything you said between then and your last post to reinforce that.



I guess that was your mistake. Mine was not being clear and well formulated enough in that post.

What prompted me to write that was that I felt that people over-emphasized the importance of music theory and were of the opinion that learning more music theory will always lead to better music. I never wanted to make it seem like I think music theory is useless, because I certainly don't think so. I just wanted to point out that there's other skills that are useful too, and sometimes maybe more useful. I have spent time trying to teach myself music theory and I have good use of that now. But I have also spent a lot of time simply working on writing music, and I feel like that has benefited me probably even more. For me, a combination of these things is probably the best, with an emphasis on practical songwriting. Mostly, the best stuff I come up with comes from just trying things out until I find something that sounds good. That is the basis for my stance of "more theory isn't always better". It's all about the best use of your time, and that is very individual.

And I also never meant to give the idea that I think that the artists I listen to don't know ANY theory. Of course they do. But what I wanted to express was that they probably don't know nearly as much as some other musicians do, whose music I don't like nearly as much. Hence, more music theory not necessarily being simply "better".



Mr. Big Noodles said:


> I suppose, yeah. I'm saying that theory is the description, not the application. There is also a degree of generalization that happens. Hopefully, our observations help us to understand music a bit better.
> 
> I'll add that, in a scientific sense, a theory has to be testable. Depending on how you look at it, this can get hairy with music.
> 
> ...



I think you draw some odd conclusions. I do think that theory knowledge influences writing MORE in certain genres than others, but that's not necessarily because of the musicians saying "let's use theory" or "let's not use theory", but rather it's a product of how much theory knowledge the musicians have at their disposal. How much they've learnt, how much they know. And that's what I think does differ between genres, overall.


----------



## carvinx (May 1, 2016)

I'm suprised this thread is still going lol. I got to page 62 in my Berklee method for guitar but became lazy and haven't studied in a few weeks. I am planning on jumping back into the book and continue my reading. I went from weak music reading abilities, to slowly being able to play some melodies in different key signatures, and more complex beats. Also went from reading/playing in open position, to the second position. I used my knowledge of the major scale and modes to connect the positions. I cannot sight read yet (especially after slacking) but still look at it as improvement . I plan on signing up to Berklee online with intentions of becoming a better musician. I hope to get the discipline I need in order to have a stronger understanding of music and reading and imprve my overall performance. Overall my sight reading goals have lead me to getting an education in music, even if one would consider it a waste of money. You will never be much of a great musician if you are to stubborn to make improvement in your skills and knowledge. I disagree with anyone who says that theory and music reading is not necessary to become a great musician. Without understanding music, you will not know what you are playing, you will not be able to play with other musicians well, and you will lack the tools to make good music.


----------



## Drew (May 2, 2016)

gnoll said:


> I think you're confusing "the guys in Metallica" with Kirk Hammett.



Well, we've got Hammett, and Burton. Two of the four confirmed to have spent time studying theory, and the other two may have as well for all I know. Considering early Metallica was your example of a band where knowledge of theory *doesn't* matter, I'd say the fact that at least two of them did study theory is pretty pertinent to this conversation.


----------



## ncfiala (May 2, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> I'll add that, in a scientific sense, a theory has to be testable. Depending on how you look at it, this can get hairy with music.


 
Testability pertains to the use of the word "theory" in science. The word "theory" in "music theory" is used much like it is in mathematics (which is not science and neither is music) to simply refer to the body of knowledge surrounding a particular subject. For instance, "sheaf theory" just refers to the body of knowledge that we have built up regarding the subject of sheaves.


----------



## gnoll (May 2, 2016)

Drew said:


> for all I know



That's just it, isn't it?

And who's got the most writing credits? Second most?

Oh, I think it's Hetfield and then Ulrich. Huh, that's funny. Idc about Hammett and Burton. My point stands. Don't agree with it? Too bad. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.


----------



## Drew (May 2, 2016)

gnoll said:


> That's just it, isn't it?
> 
> And who's got the most writing credits? Second most?
> 
> Oh, I think it's Hetfield and then Ulrich. Huh, that's funny. Idc about Hammett and Burton. My point stands. Don't agree with it? Too bad. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.



My lack of agreement also doesn't mean you're _right_.


----------



## haydn (May 2, 2016)

Not sure if this has been posted already. This book is a beast to get through though:

http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Studi...2297&sr=8-4&keywords=sight+reading+for+guitar


----------



## gnoll (May 2, 2016)

Drew said:


> My lack of agreement also doesn't mean you're _right_.



No, you're right there. That'd be weird.

Seriously though, you push the fact that Hammett and Burton were the two guys in the band who knew the most theory. But then I'd say that the fact that those two guys have less writing credits compared to Hetfield and Ulrich actually supports my view. The guys with the most knowledge writes the least of the music. Hmh. Thanks for bringing that up.


----------



## carvinx (May 3, 2016)

gnoll said:


> No, you're right there. That'd be weird.
> 
> Seriously though, you push the fact that Hammett and Burton were the two guys in the band who knew the most theory. But then I'd say that the fact that those two guys have less writing credits compared to Hetfield and Ulrich actually supports my view. The guys with the most knowledge writes the least of the music. Hmh. Thanks for bringing that up.



You only speak of metallica. How about john petrucci, stach, Vai, chris broderick, etc. These guys knew theory pretty well or went to music school. Can't knock knowledge. Like I said if you don't know what you are playing, how do you expect to come up with good music, improvise, or play with a band at your full potential. You lack the ability to express what you want to play. Skill, knowledge and creativity and different things.


----------



## MajorTom (May 3, 2016)

Drew said:


> Devil's advocate, and I'd LOVE to hear a couple counter-opinions to this;
> 
> I don't know how much value there is in trying to become exceptionally good at sight-reading on the guitar. Couple reasons for this.
> 
> ...



You have obviously never had work as a session guitarist, it's not uncommon to be handed traditional music notation, and asked to play to it, embellish it, add guitar to it...

For example something that is written primarily for a piano, so most of the melody and bass will be provided by the piano, and a guitar and bass guitar are just being used to 'fill' a void so to speak, so there is no guitar parts written out, the only thing that is notated is the piano parts, so you have to work from that.


----------



## gnoll (May 3, 2016)

carvinx said:


> You only speak of metallica. How about john petrucci, stach, Vai, chris broderick, etc. These guys knew theory pretty well or went to music school. Can't knock knowledge. Like I said if you don't know what you are playing, how do you expect to come up with good music, improvise, or play with a band at your full potential. You lack the ability to express what you want to play. Skill, knowledge and creativity and different things.



Dude, here's the thing. I brought up Metallica _once _because that's a band I personally like and have listened to a lot. Then people couldn't seem to stop bringing it up again and trying to use it against me, when in fact I still think it supports the point I've been trying to make. And if you read all my posts in this thread you'd know I'm not KNOCKING knowledge, I'm just saying learning more theory isn't always the best way to go for everyone.

I'm sure the guys you bring up know a whole lot of theory and I know a lot of people really like their music. That's great, but I'm not one of those people. My aim isn't to be able to play like those people and it's not to write similar music to what they do. I simply don't think I have as much use for a really deep understanding of music theory as they do, so there's things I'd rather spend my time on. I really don't understand why that seems to be so hard to digest for people.

And as far as not knowing what you're playing, for me personally, a lot of the best stuff I come up with seems to come from pure improvisation, not thinking about which key I'm in, which scale I could use, or anything like that. But simply using notes which I think sound good and trying things out until something good happens. I do think some theory knowledge still helps me here because an understanding of how keys/chords/scales work makes it easier for me to quickly find good sounding notes, but I don't see it as _that _important and I don't find much use for more than elementary music theory. And if I was writing even simpler music than what I am, I think I'd also have less use of music theory.


----------



## Drew (May 3, 2016)

MajorTom said:


> You have obviously never had work as a session guitarist, it's not uncommon to be handed traditional music notation, and asked to play to it, embellish it, add guitar to it...
> 
> For example something that is written primarily for a piano, so most of the melody and bass will be provided by the piano, and a guitar and bass guitar are just being used to 'fill' a void so to speak, so there is no guitar parts written out, the only thing that is notated is the piano parts, so you have to work from that.



No, I haven't - I'm a hobbyist musician but a full time financial analyst, which doesn't leave much time for working on anyone else's music than my own.  That's why I was very clear that I was looking for counter-opinions, and I think I found a few pretty good ones in this thread. 



gnoll said:


> I do think some theory knowledge still helps me here because an understanding of how keys/chords/scales work makes it easier for me to quickly find good sounding notes...



Shockingly, we're in complete agreement here. I'd say we maybe disagree a little in extent - for someone who primarily writes and records their own music I don't know how much utility there is in sight-reading, and certainly stuff like serialism or 12-tone composition isn't going to be much use in a rock context - well, at least, nut until you get into some pretty experimential stuff. But I absolutely think that having at least a working knowledge of the diatonic scales and their modes, of chord construction, and on cadence and harmony is something that would serve ALL guitarists well.


----------



## wespaul (May 12, 2016)

gnoll said:


> No, you're right there. That'd be weird.
> 
> Seriously though, you push the fact that Hammett and Burton were the two guys in the band who knew the most theory. But then I'd say that the fact that those two guys have less writing credits compared to Hetfield and Ulrich actually supports my view. The guys with the most knowledge writes the least of the music. Hmh. Thanks for bringing that up.



I'm late to the party on this thread, but you have to be trolling. I mean, you just have to. James Hetfield credits Cliff Burton for teaching him harmony, which is apparent on the albums after KEA. You're discrediting the role theory played because Burton and Hammett don't share in as much of the writing credits, but that doesn't take away that Cliff heavily influenced James' writing. 

Also, arguing the order of names in the writing credits is asinine. Dave Mustaine wrote a lot of KEA and they put his name dead last in the credits


----------



## gnoll (May 13, 2016)

wespaul said:


> I'm late to the party on this thread, but you have to be trolling. I mean, you just have to. James Hetfield credits Cliff Burton for teaching him harmony, which is apparent on the albums after KEA. You're discrediting the role theory played because Burton and Hammett don't share in as much of the writing credits, but that doesn't take away that Cliff heavily influenced James' writing.
> 
> Also, arguing the order of names in the writing credits is asinine. Dave Mustaine wrote a lot of KEA and they put his name dead last in the credits



LOL

How much of Metallica's music is harmony? There's little bits here and there, hardly what makes their music what it is. Besides, those are the parts of their music I don't even like. Orion? I ....ing hate that song.

Anyway, it's sort of besides the point isn't it? I never said they don't know ANY theory, or that there's nothing of that .... involved. Fact remains, Hetfield is hardly a music theory expert, even if Burton "taught him harmony". Lol...

And yeah, Dave Mustaine, they're obviously gonna be just as fair to him as they are to Burton and Hammett. I mean, If the writing credits of Mustaine doesn't reflect what he wrote properly, the same must OF COURSE BE TRUE FOR BURTON AND HAMMETT. MAKES COMPLETE SENSE, omg thanks for opening my eyes to that.


----------



## bostjan (May 13, 2016)

Metallica and Slayer were your examples. I think it's safe to say that maybe Metallica was not the best example to support your argument.

Kerry King took guitar lessons for quite a while, and I've revisited his lessons in magazines since the initial discussion, and he certainly knows at least as much theory as the average lead guitarist. I think that might make Slayer kind of a poor example as well, since King has been involved in writing all along.

Hanneman may well be the opposite, I don't really have as much data about him, but I'm going to assume he didn't have the same level of theory training.


----------



## gnoll (May 13, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Metallica and Slayer were your examples. I think it's safe to say that maybe Metallica was not the best example to support your argument.
> 
> Kerry King took guitar lessons for quite a while, and I've revisited his lessons in magazines since the initial discussion, and he certainly knows at least as much theory as the average lead guitarist. I think that might make Slayer kind of a poor example as well, since King has been involved in writing all along.
> 
> Hanneman may well be the opposite, I don't really have as much data about him, but I'm going to assume he didn't have the same level of theory training.



Funny thing is, I still think they're good examples for the point I was trying to make. Which WASN'T that they don't know any theory whatsoever. But then people come up and say "but this guy knows theory!!!!1111 he took lessonz". Well almost every single guitarist is obviously gonna know SOME theory. That wasn't even what I was saying.


----------



## MrWulf (May 13, 2016)

This conversation is funny. It reminded me when i bought this ebook that was about guitar creativity. I was stuck in a rut with my playing so i thought that i should give it ago. After the first few promising first pages, it nose dived into scales and modes. I'm not the most theory literate person around, but i know modes, scales, notes names, chord formulas beforehand. So if "learning creativity" means learning music theory, then really there's no escape from it. Might as well dive into it because in the end it is about application, not knowledge. Music theory is just a common language agreed upon to make communication better.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 13, 2016)

gnoll said:


> LOL
> 
> How much of Metallica's music is harmony? There's little bits here and there, hardly what makes their music what it is. Besides, those are the parts of their music I don't even like. Orion? I ....ing hate that song.



"If I don't like it, it doesn't count. Also, I get to vacillate freely in order to delude myself in spite of all contrary evidence to maintain my self-prescribed, immutable, frequently contradictory opinion." - gnoll, 2016



MrWulf said:


> So if "learning creativity" means learning music theory, then really there's no escape from it. Might as well dive into it because in the end it is about application, not knowledge.





I'm glad that you've come to the conclusion in the second sentence, and I'm sorry that you had to buy a book that advertised itself falsely (or did it?) in order to come to that conclusion. There's an element of truth to this. We practice guitar so that we can play music better, so that we don't have to think so much as we're playing, and so we don't have to constantly think about technique and instead focus on the expressive elements of our playing.

Now some stuff for everyone.

Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi on 'Flow' (pay attention at 10:00):


And a paper: John H. Flowers & Calvin P. Garbin - Creativity and Perception (1989)

Relevant bits:



> The particular topics (and perceptual tasks) that we will be discussing are selected largely because they focus on the joint role of involuntarily and executively controlled processes in perception. We are guided by a broad conception of creativity that assumes that there are essentially three factors that influence an individual&#8217;s creative potential. One involves the relative &#8220;looseness&#8221; of involuntary organizational processes. An individual for whom the involuntary processes operate somewhat less deterministically (but perhaps less efficiently) is more likely to represent environmental data mentally (as well as data recalled from memory) in novel ways. The potential relationship between schizophrenia and creativity (Keefe & Magaro, 1980; Prentky, 1979) would seem to illustrate this factor
> 
> The second factor involves the power of executively controlled processes, such as spatial selective attention, manipulation of mental images, and controlled cross-modal representation. Presumably, an individual having superior executive control of these processes is able to produce novel representations of information through effortful construction and modification of mental representations. This concept of &#8220;creativity through controlled mental effort&#8221; is very different from the concept of creativity attributable to &#8220;loose organizational processes.&#8221; For example, schizophrenics and individuals with schizotypic patterns of cognitive activity are notably weak on performance measures that presumably tap executively
> controlled mental processes.
> ...


Reiterated, more condensed:



> &#8230;creativity thus can result from some combination of (1) novel percepts attributable to departures from the normal deterministic processes of perceptual organization, (2) effortful conscious mental activity involving manipulation and transformation of codes that generate novel representations, and (3) spontaneous generation of novel representations. Because the relative contributions of each of these to a specific creative achievement presumably varies markedly across both situations and individuals, the relationship between specific cognitive abilities or characteristics of processing and the likelihood of an individual&#8217;s producing products judged to be creative is highly configural and thus difficult to measure. (159)


I'll try to paraphrase.

Creativity happens via three factors in combination:


Doing things according to no plan whatsoever.
Doing things according to a plan.
Inspiration that comes in a flash.
It's difficult to say when any one of these factors is in play, because they operate fairly equally and there's more than one way to skin a cat. Daydreaming encourages creativity and gives your mind space to solve problems.

I'm probably misinterpreting this, and the study is from 1989, so who knows. I'm not a psychologist.


----------



## MrWulf (May 14, 2016)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> "If I don't like it, it doesn't count. Also, I get to vacillate freely in order to delude myself in spite of all contrary evidence to maintain my self-prescribed, immutable, frequently contradictory opinion." - gnoll, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One thing I'd like to ask @gnoll is if people shouldn't invest in learning theory that much (this is what he said originally), so what people should be doing then? Every guitar exercises on this planet Earth are all revolves around applying techniques to a set of notes, more often than not scales. Of course, you can just use the visual fretboard pattern to get your way through but inevitably at some points you are going to need to learn about what those patterns means, and how it connects to your exercises etc etc. I mean, you can learn your chop and your speed until you are blue in the face but without a mean to communicate or express your musical idea to yourself, bandmates and others, you might as well just burn your guitar and be done with it. 

Examples:


----------



## wespaul (May 16, 2016)

gnoll said:


> How much of Metallica's music is harmony?



Do you know what harmony is? More importantly, are you unable to tell the difference between Kill 'em All and their subsequent albums? If you're asking these questions with any sort of seriousness, then this discussion is probably too deep for you.


----------

