YTSEJAM Digest 5391
Today's Topics:
1) Vai concert
by Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com>
2) YTSEJAM digest 5390
by ytsejam-manager
3) waging a theoretical war
by "M P" <mremann6@hotmail.com>
4) RE: Wanted Dead or Alive
by "Herbert, Jason" <jherbert@biccgeneral.com>
5) Theory response #2
by "Awake ." <awake@buffymail.com>
6) Re: a short essay on theory
by "Josh Calkin" <j_calkin@oz.plymouth.edu>
7) Re: Keyboard Debacles, Theory (offtopicer than offtopic)
by "Jordi Torras" <Syrinx@teleline.es>
8) Springsteen/Theory
by Paul Weiss <paulw@bass.org>
9) theory and cdr's and unsubbing OH MY!
by "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com>
10) theory
by "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com>
11) Re: FII's state of mind vs. SFAM's
by Janne Jokitalo <janne_jokitalo@yahoo.com>
12)
by "Marcel Coenen" <mcoenen@cobweb.nl>
13) Re: music theory
by "Kenn de Mello" <k_demell@oz.plymouth.edu>
14) Point taken on musical theory
by "Gervois Stephen" <stephen.gervois@free.fr>
15) Platypus
by Dustro2@aol.com
16) Re: Platypus
by "Jyrki Takalo-Kastari" <deadhead@nic.fi>
17) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5390
by "Chris Ptacek" <someone@enteract.com>
18) Springsteen, Setlists
by funkygroove30@webtv.net (Robert Denni)
19) Fw: YTSEJAM digest 5390
by "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net>
20) Fw: theory
by "Steven Zebrowski" <szebro1@gl.umbc.edu>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:54:57 +0000
From: Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Vai concert
Message-ID: <38CE2891.3804C14A@picsel.com>
I went to see Steve Vai on Saturday. Absolutely incredible gig! Sold-out
venue, ravenous crowd, shit-hot performance from Steve and his band.
The support act was Eric Sardinas with a couple of backing players; this
guy is truly evil. Using a beer bottle as a slide, and all kinds of funny
stuff. Very enjoyable.
Mike Mangini is very good on drums, and Mike Keneally is very good at
pretty much everything.
-- Graham Borland Picsel Technologies Ltd graham@picsel.com Glasgow, Scotland------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:01 +0100 From: ytsejam-manager To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: YTSEJAM digest 5390 Message-ID: <CPO9v0wvuI@sts.sigma.it>
SUBJECT: YTSEJAM digest 5390 ERROR: An attached file is too large
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:44:48 EST From: "M P" <mremann6@hotmail.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: waging a theoretical war Message-ID: <20000314124448.29317.qmail@hotmail.com>
> >If I name the chord "f h d g a#" (low to high) can any >theory tell me >what I should pick as a nice-sounding root note
Atonal might (or it might give you a 'good' chord or note sequence to follow it). Can't say that the book we've been studying lately has been at all clear...
> > Theory let's you learn tricks, >Like what?
well, like what we just said above. kinda nice to know where you can take something when you're composing. Of course, you're free to throw any convention out the window.
>Also, I don't understand what kind of chord you're trying to build if >you've got C#, F, B (Nat), D, G, and A#/Bb.
with that much Scriabinish clash, 'd guess something most appropriate for a horror film. Not Herrmann-"Psycho" tension and evil, but a good way to get there.
that said, just about anything would probably work for a root note. It looks like you're going for dissonance, and all 12 pitches will clash somewhere in that chord.
>From: "Adriano F. Giacomini" >Subject: Re: Finally Free question... > >Maybe it's not as obvious to others as it is to me - but the chords > >on the record player are exactly those of "Regression" / "The Spirit > >Carries On."
We mentioned that one.... a few months ago? man, time flies. Didn't realize it was also part of Regression. It's also played right before "Through Her Eyes", the keyboard solo with the gospel singer vocalizing over it.
JAJUID
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:00:45 -0500 From: "Herbert, Jason" <jherbert@biccgeneral.com> To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: Wanted Dead or Alive Message-ID: <6D70903196D4D11190680008C728A61D026B1E9F@HQEXS01>
]From the DT FAQ:
"6.1.4 Who sings on the satiric "Wanted Dead or Alive" demo? John Petrucci originally recorded this demo as a practice tape for one of his guitar students before IAW was released. The demo tracks laid down by John were recorded with guitar and a drum machine only and no added vocals. Eventually, Chris Collins, one of Dream Theater's earliest vocalists got hold of the tape and decided to add some vocals of his own to the background music. The final result is the "heliumfest" you hear on the demo.
[note: It was previously listed that Rich Kern (Kevin's old roommate and programmer for "SDV") did the vocals. Kern himself denied this in an email message and said it was Collins. There is an alternate source (the DT Tourography) that says Kern was at a DT show and admitted he did them.]"
-Zircon the Blue
"There's someone for everyone, even if you need a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."
------------------------------
Date: 14 Mar 2000 14:58:24 -0000 From: "Awake ." <awake@buffymail.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Theory response #2 Message-ID: <20000314145824.13015.qmail@musone.chek.com>
>>WHAT THE FUCK DOES DIFFERENT TYPES OF MUSIC >>HAVE ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT THIS??????
Someone learned how to use the caps lock key this morning... ;)
>From: mikel <mikel@alphalink.com.au> >To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
I'm gonna TRY to get through this without a single flame! :)
>>learn the language. I mean, basically, I don't think a >>person who doesn't know theory should be allowed to call >> themselves a musician - it's just laziness not to learn >> theory as it applies to what you're doing. > >My god I've never seen so many prog-snobs in my life.
I'm listening to the Corrs right now. I was listening to the new Oasis album last night before I went out and listened to dance music all night. I think the last time I listened to anything even vaguely proggy was Saturday, although I wouldn't call modern Floyd "prog" personally. So it must have been last wednesday, when I put on LTE for a bit! Obviously, I'm a prog snob, as you can tell.
>You can't have expected not to get flamed for this >comment? So Jeff Beck isnt a musician. What about Eddie >Van Halen or Hendrix (sorry im a guitarist). What about >the people who make electronic music. Most of them have >little idea about theory. Thats the most stupidest >comment ive ever heard. Im flabbergasted at >your stupidity.
Van Halen knows theory, I think. Jeff Beck is a great guitarist and an interesting composer. I like both of them and it's fair enough to make an exception for Beck (even if I'm sure he knows the rudiments of theory). I'd call them both musicians. Hendrix, on the other hand, was a guitarist. And a producer at a stretch.
>Take the main riff for Nirvana's "Lithium". The chords >go E, G#, C#, A, C, D, B, D. So basically its very >chromatic and makes no obvious sense >theoretically. However, it sounds cool. It doesnt even >sound harsh or jazzy. Now anyone with extensive theory >knowledge would never have done something like that. >They could have either derived it through hours >of 'twisting' around theory but unlikely. Or else they >would have simply not played it because a) its too >simple b) they assume that its not going to sound good.
And why do you assume that? The people you're describing are people who treat theory like a straight-jacket; and nobody will defend them. Theory, like chops, are a very bad thing in the wrong hands. Can you spell Yngvie, kids? Sure, he has the chops and the theory; but he has no imagination at all. Just lots and lots of notes. He would never come up with the lithium riff. I doubt Petrucci would either; but you can't say that theory necessarily WILL limit someone who learns it. Some people reject it, some live by it...And the rest of us are aware of it and use it as another tool in the box.
>To conclude my essay, I would say yes theory can be very >useful and it is essential if you want to be the type of >musician who can play many styles and fit in in many >circumstances, but if you can make good, original music >without it (and many can) go for it!
Sure, go for it. Just don't insult musicians by pretending that you're
>life) and earning money (which means more creative >freedom).
Not from music, you probably won't. Have you ever heard of a session musician who doesn't know a fair amount of theory? They have to understand what is required quickly and easily, and theory vastly aids this. That, you see, is the fundamental difference between a PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN and SOMEONE WHO PLAYS AN INSTRUMENT.
~Simon
NP: The Corrs, "No Good For Me"
Sign-up for free Buffy the Vampire Slayer e-mail at http://www.buffymail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:24:41 -0500 From: "Josh Calkin" <j_calkin@oz.plymouth.edu> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: a short essay on theory Message-ID: <003901bf8dc9$6b622400$47ab889e@plymouth.edu>
> > Just because you want to be serious about music, it doesn't mean you HAVE > > to learn theory.
Very true, but it's nice to know how your car's engine works in case it ever breaks down.
My point is this: Musicians don't need to know theory, but it is in fact useful to any musician. If you are filling in at a gig on bass and the guitarist tells you to do a standard 12-bar blues progression in F minor and stick to the root notes, you'd better know what that means.
There is no AAA on stage.
> > Then the problem isn't your "extensive" theory knowledge. The problem is > > you. Learning theory does NOT (at least, it shouldn't) give you a little > > voice in your head that says, "Don't resolve that tritione that way!" or "Go > > back and fix that V7/vi that you left unresolved!" > > I think for most (if not all) people it does certainly hinder > experimenting.
That's a dangerous assumption to make. True, theory can scare some people into using only I-IV-V-I progressions because they are CERTAIN they're correct, but for the majority of people, this is not the case. If you look back on theory to the Baroque period, music was EXTREMELY limited (by today's standards) in what was "allowed" in terms of chords, note resolutions, etc. Theory today, as it is taught at the higher levels, is a means of understanding music. For example: > Take the main riff for Nirvana's "Lithium". The chords go E, G#, C#, A, > C, D, B, D. I don't have the disc with me to listen to, but assuming that the song is in the key of E, the chords are: I, iii, vi, IV, bVI (flat VI), VII, V, VII. While unorthodox(in popular music), this progression is not unheard of. In fact, this type of progression could have been seen possibly, the classical period, and was most certainly found in the romantic, at some point. People who assume that theory is intimately tied with Bach and Mozart only are the ones who are limiting themselves. It is a way for understanding ALL types of music.
Theory, as I said, can be a good basis for understanding how music works in it's barebones nuts-and-bolts form. And for tying say, Nirvana to Stravinsky.
Theory CANNOT, however, explain why Barber's "Adagio for strings" and DT's "Home", while so vastly different, both make the hair stand up on the back of my neck ;) That is its failing point.
I apologize for my babbling.
Regards, Josh Calkin: URL: http://members.tripod.com/~DarkHarmony E-Mail: darkharmony13@hotmail.com j_calkin@oz.plymouth.edu ICQ: 22473371, AOL IM: Mortua, IRC: Mortua
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:07:45 +0100 From: "Jordi Torras" <Syrinx@teleline.es> To: "Ytsejam" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: Keyboard Debacles, Theory (offtopicer than offtopic) Message-ID: <000c01bf8dd7$d754b0c0$922704d5@syrinx>
Jens Johansson wrote:
>I think I can agree with most of this, but with the slant that I think >anyone being serious about music will WANT to know more about it sooner or >later. The Spain analogy is indeed good. If you move to Spain, eventually >you will WANT to learn a little Spanish... it makes day to day life (post >office, supermarket, fights with your wife's parents) so much easier. The >fallacy I see (if there even is one) is the belief that you CAN "learn >Spanish", or that there even is such a thing as One, True, Perfect Spanish. >"Learning a little Spanish" should not in any way imply that it's useful >for all immigrants to Spain to strive for "perfection": would "perfection" >be spot-on mastery of Andalusian, Madrid, and Catalan dialect/slang, being >able to recite Cervantes at the drop of a hat? (And of course, then you >visit San Sebastian and see what good your painstakingly acquired >shibboleth of "perfect Spanish with an Andalusian accent" is going to do >you. :)
Hahaha! Very funny what yo wrote! :-) I'm from Barcelona, Catalonia, "Spain", so I understand perfectly what you're talking about. By the way, Catalan it's not a dialect of the Spanish, but another language :-) In Spain there're 5 different languages: Galician, Basque, Spanish, Catalan and another one I dunno the name in English. All come from the Latin, except Basque that is a pre-romanic language.
See ya on May 6th in Barcelona: Strato + Rhapsody + Sonata Artica !!!
P.S: I can tell you some words in Catalan for the gig if you want :-), better don't talk Spanish with Andalusian accent here :-)
Jordi Torras
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:14:51 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Weiss <paulw@bass.org> To: The Dance of Ytinrete <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Springsteen/Theory Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.21.0003141155280.1977-100000@gs.bass.org>
I realize we're all passionate about music here, and I fault no one with the way simple disagreements tend to escalate. Regardless, you'll get my two cents worth sans flaming/name-calling, at least on my part.
I like some of Bruce's songs, but I also think that they're better when someone with a better voice sings them [a la Dylan], i.e. Because the Night, both Smith's and Merchant's version kick any version Brucey could sing, and Manfred Mann's version of Blinded by the Light, despite Chris Thompson's affliction with the Paul Reiser Syndrome.
And I also love the way a simple query turns into a free-for-all with some pertinent points made by Jens (Though in his chord analogy he should have written e# to avoid Andrew's confusion, as I've already pointed out). Obviously, the lesson learned from this "debate" is that what works for one doesn't work for all.
>KorgX3 thinks people take theory too seriously.
Although, if Korgy had learned theory, he might think theory takes people too seriously.
A cactus (props to Bafu for the applicable analogy) NP Millenium: Angelfire (Obviously a terrible band because they can't spell Millennium properly) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul's biweekly musical quote:
Sometimes it's uncouth/ to tell the truth
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:20:15 PST From: "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: theory and cdr's and unsubbing OH MY! Message-ID: <20000314172015.84707.qmail@hotmail.com>
No, that's not true. Plenty of people get by living in a country where they don't speak the language. If you learn the language, however, it makes it MUCH easier to comunitcate with others and figure out what's going on, much like music.
On another note, I don't like downloading illegal mp3's or making illegal cdr's, but a little question came up. If I buy a cd, and it gets cracked, is it then ok to have someone rip it for me? If so, could someone please rip me a copy of 'Day for Night', and disc 1 of 'different stages'? Please =^)....
On yet another note, I think a good solution to the 'take me off this list or I will sue you' thing is just to unsub EVERYBODY, and start from scratch. Give fair warning, say 10 jams. I doubt anyone will find the unsub instructions if we put 'em in the jam..
-Fran/Banjoman
np: Rush - Different Stages - Disc 3
My inspiration for the first paragraph of this post:No offense, but that's a really bad analogy. One does NOT need to know theory to play music or enjoy. One MUST speak Spanish in order to live in Spain since most people there speak Spanish. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:49:32 PST From: "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: theory Message-ID: <20000314174932.52866.qmail@hotmail.com>
I think for most (if not all) people it[theory] does certainly hinder experimenting.
Theory only hinders experimenting if you treat it as 'rules' rather than 'suggestions'. I guess the bottom line is this: if you don't know theory, and you are perfectly happy with your writing/playing(before you flame me, I don't mean TECHNICAL playing) ability, then don't learn it. If, however, you are dissatisfied, or are wondering why all your songs suck, or are wondering why your band's jams never go anywhere, or why you made a fool of yourself when you tried to sit in with that jazz band, etc., then LEARN SOME THEORY. Duh =^). (wow, that was a big bottom line...oh well)
-Fran/Banjoman
p.s. Before you flame me, I'm not saying that people who don't know theory can't write good songs or jam or play jazz, etc.....
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:10:41 +0200 From: Janne Jokitalo <janne_jokitalo@yahoo.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: FII's state of mind vs. SFAM's Message-ID: <38CE80A1.506EE17B@yahoo.com>
CyberDuke wrote: > > It just seems like something is missing. I dunno, .... I just see the > fact (if it's true) that a band is bothered by their company to do a > mainstream album (although for me FII is not mainstream, ... maybe few > average songs but ...) and next thing you know the band releases a full > prog concept album (something which is totally in contrast with the > previous).
I think it's quite obvious, likeyou said earlier... The record company saw that it's not like they are gonna get a huge rush of fans buying an album from a prog metal band even they had gone to a little more accessible way, so why not use the advantage of earlier gathered fanbase and let the band do their trick in making an album (almost) every "true" fan would buy. They saw how Awake was doing, then they saw how FII was doing, and they learnt their lesson.
To me it's as simple as that. Thou', I might be totally wrong here... Just guessing.
- Jaska aka Winger
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:51:30 +0100 From: "Marcel Coenen" <mcoenen@cobweb.nl> To: <info@lemurvoice.com> Message-ID: <001401bf8de6$730a1ba0$490cced4@cobweb.nl>
Hello all !!!
My solo-CD can now be purchased through MP3.com !! The CD will be sold there as a D.A.M. CD (check the webpage for more information) and costs $ 11.00. U can listen to the songs online and download 3 out of the 9 tracks which are on the CD.
Here is the URL to go directly to my MP3.com page: http://www.mp3.com/marcelcoenen
for more information about me in general I refer to the following webpages:
My Personal Website: http://www.marcelcoenen.cjb.net
My Band's Website: http://www.lemurvoice.com
Please let me know what U think !!
Cheers,
Marcel
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:08:19 -0500 From: "Kenn de Mello" <k_demell@oz.plymouth.edu> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: music theory Message-ID: <000f01bf8de8$a90d1840$b7ab889e@plymouth.edu>
I agree with much of what is being said supporting theory on this list, except for the analogies. I was thinking about it last night and came up with this: Why is music theory called music theory and not music law? Because it is a theory. There is no right or wrong and no absolute that is valid or invalid in every case. Sure the I-IV-V chord progression sounds good, but it is not the right progression for every piece of music ever. According to Bach type theory, V cannot go to IV. Um, hello blues...this happens all the time. This is just what I am saying, it is a theory. All of you anti-theory jammers think about this before flaming us theory jammers. This is how we think about it, or should think about it anyway. Plus you anti-theory people have no idea what I am talking about...so HA HA HA HA HA!
Anyway, that is just what I think about it...
Kenn.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 20:45:41 +0100 From: "Gervois Stephen" <stephen.gervois@free.fr> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Point taken on musical theory Message-ID: <003901b7b4a1$61dd37c0$056464c8@cycosystems>
Refer to digest 5389 & 5390 :
OK OK :
Steve Z - point taken thats your point of view lets jam 1 time to see what awesome stuff we could get together ;-P .
Chris - Same to you ! Wanna JAM !!
>>2) I can start by telling you about what I've lived : >>I'm a bassist and have played by ear for nearly 9 years now and no-one I >>know are as nearly as creative musically as I am (I'm not talkin' about the >>pros 'a la' Myung or Trujillo ect...).
> Okay, I'm a guitarist of 12 years. Does that make my experiences more >valid than yours? No... but let's continue.
Of coarse not, but you know that that wasn't my point don't you. I've been creative from scratch but things get better when you speed up a bit and get that 'feeling' of your instrument.
>To quote you "we're all different." Example: Theory HAS helped >me write. Perhaps what you were doing was following the cycle of 5ths >progression, and not using any rules for substitution, but in any case, >theory can be used to create ANY chord progression. More importantly, it >helps you understand why a chord progression "works" at times.
I don't know what the f**k a 'cycle of 5ths progression' is but have you ever seen a really good 'ear' playing musician ... .. you might be surprised. (Not that I'm good I don't judge myself)
>>No again : Imagination gives you ALL the colors.
> So then, naturally, you can improvise like Gary Willis or Jimmy Johnson, >right? Okay, maybe that's not fair... maybe you shouldn't have to have the >technique to defend your point. But you should be able to understand every >damn note of a Gary Willis solo, and at a slow tempo, should be able to play >over the same changes.
It is not fair ... I don't know these guys is it cool ? What kind of stuff do they do ? But could you not play approx. a Gary Willis solo do you have to play it note for note ?
AND FINALLY : a little note to pretty annoyed Kenn, I'm sorry I annoyed you but I was talking more about the reply from Chris than to yourself. I should not have ended my mail the way I did ;-P Scheesh ...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:30:10 EST From: Dustro2@aol.com To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Platypus Message-ID: <7b.22cc2da.25fffb52@aol.com>
Anyone else got the Platypus album today??? I did! so far so good!! Im intrested in some other opinions....i have not gotten through it all yet but the 10 min instrumenta at the end is rocken! laterzz dustro
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:39:57 +0200 From: "Jyrki Takalo-Kastari" <deadhead@nic.fi> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: Platypus Message-ID: <002e01bf8df5$76e227e0$2aee26d4@masiina>
----- Original Message ----- ]From: <Dustro2@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:35 PM Subject: Platypus
> > Anyone else got the Platypus album today??? I did! so far so good!! Im > intrested in some other opinions....i have not gotten through it all yet but > the 10 min instrumenta at the end is rocken! > laterzz > dustro
I bought it couple of days ago and like it very much. I haven't heard the first Platypus album at all. How is it when compared to the newer one?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:21:04 -0600 From: "Chris Ptacek" <someone@enteract.com> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5390 Message-ID: <000e01bf8dea$741d3c80$34d8fea9@lbird.enteract.com>
>From: "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net> >Subject: Can your sensei do this? >It's an average day at the rice paddy in China. A kind weathered old man is
It's Sifu, in China. Sensei is Japanese. :) Maybe we can move this spiritual event to a Sushi bar in Japan. :)
>From: Uroborosss@aol.com >> You can't be serious here. >Perhaps he meant to say, "Knowledge does not equal creativity," which is at >least a semi-serious concept.
And I agree fully with this. I think this is an important point, that we've all been trying to make in one form or another. But as far as my post was concerned, I was taking exception to a whole paragraph of concepts, linked as one. Knowledge does not equal creativity, but it certainly doesn't impede creativity, once you overcome your issues. It's a philosophy that's been around for thousands of years. In China, it's translated to "Empty Mind" and is discussed where it applies to martial arts and reflex action. The idea is that if you think about what you're going to do about the punch that's flying at you, you're going to get hit by the punch in mid thought. Bruce Lee discusses it in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, which is one of those books I think every human should read. More recent books that cover this are Effortless Mastery by Kenny Werner, Zen Guitar and The Inner Game of Music. If you can overcome the burden of the knowledge you possess, and the desire to do everything at once, and the fear of fucking up, etc, then you can function more fluidly as a musical person.
>If you have nothing to communicate, and you sit in a pot of dirt with nothing >to say, you're a cactus.
If your social circle is YOU, you're a cactus!
>understanding certain things and therefore "help" you, but they certainly >don't help you "come up with" musical notes or written paragraphs, which is >what the original post said.
I disagree here, based on experience. What I mean is, my disagreement here may not hold true for everyone here, but if you consider that I would have no idea how to write decent counterpoint without theory, or that I would know little about 12 tone rows without theory etc... without the theoretical experience of these things, I would not be able to create the musical notes or written paragraphs I desire to. Theory won't replace work... on the contrary, theory requires MORE work. But when you learn a new concept you often are able to create new pieces of music that you wouldn't have been able to, previously.
>If you spend all day starin' at the sun, you're a cactus.
If you're refered to as "WATT" instead of "HOO," you're a cactus!
>gasoline. A musician must draw up his own itinerary and decide where his (OR >HER YOU SEXIST PIG!)
Haven't I overcome this yet? Will I ever be free of the burden of my misguided youth? "Not while Bafu lives, son."
>> I don't mean to overemphasize the value of theory, as you can most >> certainly make GREAT music without knowing it >I don't mean to overemphasize the value of shredding, as you can most >certainly make NEW AGE music without knowing it
This is perfect. I almost shat myself. :)
>From: Brian D Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
>I agree with you to a point, but this last part I don't get. Your >Holdsworth example has nothing to do with imagination...it has to do with >learning to imitate Holdsworth.
You're right, if you interpret what I wrote as literally as that. But I intended the example on a conceptual level... I don't want to reinvent Holdsworth's wheel... I just want to be as fluent on the fretboard as he is, over as complex music as I can create. He just stood out as an example. It's like... if you want to learn to shred, you study what Gilbert and Malmsteen and Becker and Petrucci say and do. You don't have repeat it note for note, but you need to study it, to learn the concepts. I need to study Holdsworth, and learn the concepts. So does everyone else on this list. I call. Except those of us who have played on albums with Allan. I give them a pass, because they've BEEN studying Holdsworth.
- Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:34:10 -0500 (EST) From: funkygroove30@webtv.net (Robert Denni) To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Springsteen, Setlists Message-ID: <2585-38CEB052-6488@storefull-283.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Since everyone got in a rant about whether Springsteen is crap or not, it seems the point was lost. Somebody mentioned Springsteen saying he changes setlist every show and why can't DT do that. I summed it up and will do so again, MAYBE DT DOESN'T WANT TO CHANGE THEIR SETLIST! But I guess that statement isn't as fun as "Springsteen sucks"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:53:15 -0700 From: "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Fw: YTSEJAM digest 5390 Message-ID: <005201bf8e08$3fb74080$0201010a@chuck>
> It's Sifu, in China. Sensei is Japanese. :) Maybe we can move this > spiritual event to a Sushi bar in Japan. :)
"Curse you, Ptacek! You have defeated me once again! This I cannot believe! I have lost all honor! Aaaarrrgh!"
*Korg removes his handy Swiss Army wakizashi and is quite amazed at how conveniently it inserts into his navel. The way the entrails unravel as they spume out the small dissection tickles him sending him into a laughing fit as gangrene slowly sets in.*
> If your social circle is YOU, you're a cactus!
If you are TRASH and belong in a TRASH CAN, you're a 'jammer! If you're being a dick or just flaming some Swedish prick, you're a 'jammer! If your musical ego could even make Yngwie turn green, you're a 'jammer! And if you think Mike Bahr would agree... YOU'RE A 'JAMMER!!!! -- KorgX3 thinks George Farber would agree. NP: Elton John - Blessed.mp3
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:43:06 -0500 From: "Steven Zebrowski" <szebro1@gl.umbc.edu> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Fw: theory Message-ID: <001901bf8e0f$0d3cb840$0200010a@steve>
> I read once that George Lynch didn=B4t made it with Ozzy, > 'cause he didn't know "theory"... and the guy knows how to play, and I > think he has good stuff.
George Lynch has always struck me as little more than a "guitar head." His technique is ok, but I think he's a lousy composer and I don't think he has much of a sense of melody.
I think Lynch is a pretty good example of a player who has built a career on tricks. See? No theory.
> Yngwie knows "all the theory there is to know" (according to his= > own words) but the guy has no emotion, and most of his music sucks...
I think Yngwie plays with a HELL of a lot more emotion than George Lynch! Sure, some of Yngwie's songs suck, and a lot of them sound the same. Yngwie chooses to draw only from a small chunk of his theory knowledge in order to creat his songs from the same template. Does that limit him as a composer? Of course! But it's his CHOICE. I'm sure that Yngwie has plenty of Romantic harmony techniques in his compositional arsenal, but if you asked him why he doesn't use it, he'd probably say something like, "because that stuff sounds like shit." :) I don't agree, and I think his playing/composition could seriously benefit by drawing from a broader range of influences. But Yngwie, who may not know ALL the theory there is to know but certainly knows a lot of it, has this wealth of theoretical knowledge at his disposal and still, STILL only uses what he feels he needs for the moment. The theory isn't what's limiting him. It's his own style.
> I think for most (if not all) people it does certainly hinder > experimenting.
If I've said it once, I've said it 6.23 x 10^23 times: The theory does not limit you! Your decisions to follow it blindly are what limit you!
> > and he's an amazing SINGER, but an extremely limited > > musician. He's someone who happens to be famous for making music, not > > because he's any good, but just because people like it. > > Since when has there been any other reason for a person being > a good musician other than whether people like it or not?
Since always. Since there are stigma on this list against any musician that the majority of people like (ie, the "sellout" debate).
> > learn the language. I mean, basically, I don't think a > > person who doesn't know theory should be allowed to call > > themselves a musician - it's just laziness not to learn > > theory as it applies to what you're doing. > > My god I've never seen so many prog-snobs in my life. You can't > have expected not to get flamed for this comment?
Maybe he did expect it. So what? I happen to agree with him. No one calls me an electrical engineer just because I work with them. I don't have the training to have earned that title.
> So Jeff Beck isnt a musician. What about Eddie Van Halen or > Hendrix (sorry im a guitarist).
Jeff Beck is a guitarist before he is a musician, and he'd probably agree with me. A talented guitarist at that. Eddie is a musician. What makes everyone think that EVH doesn't know theory? And Hendrix blows.
> What about the people who make electronic music. Most of them have > little idea about theory.
On the contrary, most of the electronic musicians i know know enough theory to make your head spin. Unless you're talking about electronica and other forms of electronic pop music. That stuff sucks, and it certainly doesn't take a musician who knows any theory to compose it..
[on Nirvana's "Lithium"] > Now anyone with extensive theory knowledge would never have > done something like that. They could have either derived it through > hours of 'twisting' around theory but unlikely. Or else they would have > simply not played it because a) its too simple b) they assume that its > not going to sound good.
This is outright speculation. No basis in fact whatsoever.
> To conclude my essay, I would say yes theory can be very useful > and it is essential if you want to be the type of musician who can play > many styles and fit in in many circumstances, but if you can make good, > original music without it (and many can) go for it!
Very true. It just depends on what "good" is.
Steve Z
------------------------------
End of YTSEJAM Digest 5391 **************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:08:03 EST