Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
- Thread starter Guitar Toad
- Start date
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Good! I hope you realize by now that the A min pentatonic played over an A7 in an "A" blues does not indicate the key of the song is any different that what it started out to be. That happens to be A major.
Think of it like this. Suppose a song is in A major and a tone deaf singer gets up to the microphone and sings a bunch of wrong notes. That doesn't change they key of the song or modify the original chord progression does it? No! All it means is that the singer is simply in the wrong key (which, by the way, has nothing to do with theory). :laugh2:
Blues is sorta like that If you view it purely from the standpoint of classical music theory. By chosing an A min pentatonic you have created a controlled situation where you are purposely playing in the wrong key from the standpoint of classical theory.
So you must ask yourself this question: "When a poor black guy came home after a hard day's work in the late 1800's to early 20th century and picked up an old rusty guitar to play some blues he had ..."
A. been pickin cotton all day.
B. been studying Mozart.
Also please consider that the physics of Sir Isaac Newton is great for predicting where a ball shot from a canon might be expected to land. Once you delve into the world of subatomic particles however, Newtonian physics fails to make accurate predictions. That's why physicists developed Quantum Mechanics. It would be rediculous to try to apply Newtonian physics in an attempt to predict the behavior of gluons, neutrinos and quarks!
Likewise the theory that you have been studying was great for Mozart when everything was based on purely diatonic constructs and harmonies that never extentended beyond the first octave. That theory has since been updated so that it could more accurately describe musics from later periods in history that defy the original classical theory. The theory that describes Brahms, Wagner, Debussy and Copeland had to be updated from the original classical theory. In short there is an up-to-date music theory that accurately describes styles like blues and jazz that you haven't touched on yet.
Complete the theory that you are studying now, but use it for what it is ment to be used for. That is the study of musics that are obedient to the polite diatonic world of classical music and its basic concepts. Once you have a firm grasp on this "classical" theory then advance forward to modern music theory. It is there that you will find the explanation for styles like blues and jazz that you seek.
Guitar Toad said:
Good! I hope you realize by now that the A min pentatonic played over an A7 in an "A" blues does not indicate the key of the song is any different that what it started out to be. That happens to be A major.
Think of it like this. Suppose a song is in A major and a tone deaf singer gets up to the microphone and sings a bunch of wrong notes. That doesn't change they key of the song or modify the original chord progression does it? No! All it means is that the singer is simply in the wrong key (which, by the way, has nothing to do with theory). :laugh2:
Blues is sorta like that If you view it purely from the standpoint of classical music theory. By chosing an A min pentatonic you have created a controlled situation where you are purposely playing in the wrong key from the standpoint of classical theory.
So you must ask yourself this question: "When a poor black guy came home after a hard day's work in the late 1800's to early 20th century and picked up an old rusty guitar to play some blues he had ..."
A. been pickin cotton all day.
B. been studying Mozart.
Also please consider that the physics of Sir Isaac Newton is great for predicting where a ball shot from a canon might be expected to land. Once you delve into the world of subatomic particles however, Newtonian physics fails to make accurate predictions. That's why physicists developed Quantum Mechanics. It would be rediculous to try to apply Newtonian physics in an attempt to predict the behavior of gluons, neutrinos and quarks!
Likewise the theory that you have been studying was great for Mozart when everything was based on purely diatonic constructs and harmonies that never extentended beyond the first octave. That theory has since been updated so that it could more accurately describe musics from later periods in history that defy the original classical theory. The theory that describes Brahms, Wagner, Debussy and Copeland had to be updated from the original classical theory. In short there is an up-to-date music theory that accurately describes styles like blues and jazz that you haven't touched on yet.
Complete the theory that you are studying now, but use it for what it is ment to be used for. That is the study of musics that are obedient to the polite diatonic world of classical music and its basic concepts. Once you have a firm grasp on this "classical" theory then advance forward to modern music theory. It is there that you will find the explanation for styles like blues and jazz that you seek.
Last edited:
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
There is also one other key issue. The theory of the classical period dictated what could be played. Modern theoretical concepts only attempt to describe or analyze what has already been played.
The idea is to find a way to explain why something sounds good. This is done by either applying the current state of the art theory, stretching/reinterpreting the current theory to accomodate the description of the phenomenon, or developing a new more advanced theory to descibe it. This is done so the sound can be replicated or reproduced at will. If there is a cool sound then someone is going to come up with a name for it and a methodology for reproducing it. Therefore, theory becomes a living thing that evolves to conform to its environment.
Modern theoretical approaches are more scientific in that regard. You take a thing! You dissect it! You do controlled experiments with it! You observe the results and document your finding. This is just the opposite of classical thinking were a thing existed in it's current state because God ordained it to be so! They're approach to music was the same way! They had an official panel (the Manheim) that dictated what was musically "acceptable" based on strict diatonic guidelines. A panel of several men handed down the law for the whole western world!
If Mozart had played an F# against a Cmaj triad, then the powers that be woulda said, "Oh no! That cannot be!". The only other alternative would be for them to reinterpret their current theory and say, "Oh yes! That F# was simply a passing tone that quickly resolved back to the diatonics". Although I doubt that Mozart's contemporaries would be that leniant with him. In modern theory and its interpretation we would say, "Ah! An augmented 11th! Cool!". In fact, in classical times melodic intervals like the aug 4th were called the "Devil's" interval because to the ears of the classicists the sound it made was "Satanic".
There is also one other key issue. The theory of the classical period dictated what could be played. Modern theoretical concepts only attempt to describe or analyze what has already been played.
The idea is to find a way to explain why something sounds good. This is done by either applying the current state of the art theory, stretching/reinterpreting the current theory to accomodate the description of the phenomenon, or developing a new more advanced theory to descibe it. This is done so the sound can be replicated or reproduced at will. If there is a cool sound then someone is going to come up with a name for it and a methodology for reproducing it. Therefore, theory becomes a living thing that evolves to conform to its environment.
Modern theoretical approaches are more scientific in that regard. You take a thing! You dissect it! You do controlled experiments with it! You observe the results and document your finding. This is just the opposite of classical thinking were a thing existed in it's current state because God ordained it to be so! They're approach to music was the same way! They had an official panel (the Manheim) that dictated what was musically "acceptable" based on strict diatonic guidelines. A panel of several men handed down the law for the whole western world!
If Mozart had played an F# against a Cmaj triad, then the powers that be woulda said, "Oh no! That cannot be!". The only other alternative would be for them to reinterpret their current theory and say, "Oh yes! That F# was simply a passing tone that quickly resolved back to the diatonics". Although I doubt that Mozart's contemporaries would be that leniant with him. In modern theory and its interpretation we would say, "Ah! An augmented 11th! Cool!". In fact, in classical times melodic intervals like the aug 4th were called the "Devil's" interval because to the ears of the classicists the sound it made was "Satanic".
Last edited:
tone4days
Heel Whacker
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
osensei, you rock dude! thanks for all that ... too true indeed!
i thought the devil's interval was the 'minor second' ... how'd i get that wrong? of course the tritone makes more sense given that none of the partials blend nicely
cheers
t4d
ps - i am one of those dudes who can't play ii-Vs at ANY speed
osensei, you rock dude! thanks for all that ... too true indeed!
i thought the devil's interval was the 'minor second' ... how'd i get that wrong? of course the tritone makes more sense given that none of the partials blend nicely
cheers
t4d
ps - i am one of those dudes who can't play ii-Vs at ANY speed
Last edited:
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
LOL! You may be correct Tone! I remember my Form and Analysis instructor brought the "Devil's" interval to my attention when I used it in a fugue assignment. That was probably before some of you cats were born! LOL! So my memory might be less than fresh.
LOL! You may be correct Tone! I remember my Form and Analysis instructor brought the "Devil's" interval to my attention when I used it in a fugue assignment. That was probably before some of you cats were born! LOL! So my memory might be less than fresh.
Last edited:
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Yea! I'm not senile yet! Although, I have forgotten how to spell! LOL! But it could be that both of those intervals may have shared the title! I'm not sure. That explains why Miles Davis used the tritone sub so often. Maybe that's also why Miles was nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness"!
Yea! I'm not senile yet! Although, I have forgotten how to spell! LOL! But it could be that both of those intervals may have shared the title! I'm not sure. That explains why Miles Davis used the tritone sub so often. Maybe that's also why Miles was nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness"!
Last edited:
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
How am I supposed to think about the connection between melody and harmony? I had thought as in the Mozart example of the C triad and the F#. The key/scale were supposed to determine what notes to play and which to avoid. I sure don't want a flogging for clashing "wrong" notes together.
Previously, my thinking was that the harmony of a song was there to support the melody. The melody and harmony do need to be harmonized with each other somewhat.
Now, I'm more tempted think of the harmony as more like the stage and props for the actors. If the set is a living room, then all sorts of different activities can go on in a living room. Any given living room can be quiet, loud, empty, lonely, or crowded with party guests. I think there's an analogy there that applicable to song composition and the use of chords, tones, setting and mood. This helps me to think more freely, perhaps more like an artist. The harmony is the room/setting the melodies and lead lines function as the actors. Is that a reasonable way to look at it? I just thought of that analogy, it helps me to see it like that.
Even though I'm a hopelessly analytical person, I think I still have much in common with the working man guitar play. The black man who comes home from working all day in the fields to release those blues though throttling his guitar. I can identify him more than with Mr. Amadeus. I'll take a free-range approach to guitar playing over the strict headmaster of classical music. Although, somehow both ideologies have turned out some incredible music.
But, like a child who doesn't properly know his boundaries, a "child-adolescent" guitarist/musician like me can use the oversight provided by the "rules" or guiding priniciples of music.
In terms of painting, I love the works of Rembrandt, Monet, van gogh, Dali, and Thomas Hart Benton, and George Caleb Bingham. All those artists used colors to create images.
Heres to making musical images! Cheers! Here, Here! :beerchug:
Even if it's re-drawing what's already been done in order to train the senses.
How am I supposed to think about the connection between melody and harmony? I had thought as in the Mozart example of the C triad and the F#. The key/scale were supposed to determine what notes to play and which to avoid. I sure don't want a flogging for clashing "wrong" notes together.
Previously, my thinking was that the harmony of a song was there to support the melody. The melody and harmony do need to be harmonized with each other somewhat.
Now, I'm more tempted think of the harmony as more like the stage and props for the actors. If the set is a living room, then all sorts of different activities can go on in a living room. Any given living room can be quiet, loud, empty, lonely, or crowded with party guests. I think there's an analogy there that applicable to song composition and the use of chords, tones, setting and mood. This helps me to think more freely, perhaps more like an artist. The harmony is the room/setting the melodies and lead lines function as the actors. Is that a reasonable way to look at it? I just thought of that analogy, it helps me to see it like that.
Even though I'm a hopelessly analytical person, I think I still have much in common with the working man guitar play. The black man who comes home from working all day in the fields to release those blues though throttling his guitar. I can identify him more than with Mr. Amadeus. I'll take a free-range approach to guitar playing over the strict headmaster of classical music. Although, somehow both ideologies have turned out some incredible music.
But, like a child who doesn't properly know his boundaries, a "child-adolescent" guitarist/musician like me can use the oversight provided by the "rules" or guiding priniciples of music.
In terms of painting, I love the works of Rembrandt, Monet, van gogh, Dali, and Thomas Hart Benton, and George Caleb Bingham. All those artists used colors to create images.
Heres to making musical images! Cheers! Here, Here! :beerchug:
Even if it's re-drawing what's already been done in order to train the senses.
Last edited:
L
Lewguitar
Guest
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
It's my understanding that the intro to Purple Haze is the Devil's Interval.
Right?
Fretology said:
It's my understanding that the intro to Purple Haze is the Devil's Interval.
Right?
Fretology
New member
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
I remember from music theory in college that it was the tritone..
have a read here though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_fifth
look at the second paragraph
I remember from music theory in college that it was the tritone..
have a read here though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_fifth
look at the second paragraph
L
Lewguitar
Guest
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Yep...mentions Jimi and Purple Haze all right. Lew
Fretology said:I remember from music theory in college that it was the tritone..
have a read here though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_fifth
look at the second paragraph
Yep...mentions Jimi and Purple Haze all right. Lew
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Clapton is known for making the statement to the effect that the blues guys are as strict with the blues' rules as the classical composers are with their's.
What was he talking about? The 12 bar blues and the I-IV-V progression?
Clapton is known for making the statement to the effect that the blues guys are as strict with the blues' rules as the classical composers are with their's.
What was he talking about? The 12 bar blues and the I-IV-V progression?
Last edited:
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
What Clapton is probably refering to is the fact that Blues cats much like their Jazz counterparts are rooted in tradition. They are very reluctant to accept change. In much the same way a Jazz man who is a purist would turn up his nose at Smooth Jazz, the Blues traditionalists are quick to snub some white boy that comes along and tries to introduce a bunch of fancy modal ideas into the blues.
The blues is very much these cat's Holy Grail and they have gate keepers who are more than willing to make the judgement as to what Blues is and what it is not. So in that respect they are much like the Manheim School of the classic period. Everything had to be approved by them.
What Clapton is probably refering to is the fact that Blues cats much like their Jazz counterparts are rooted in tradition. They are very reluctant to accept change. In much the same way a Jazz man who is a purist would turn up his nose at Smooth Jazz, the Blues traditionalists are quick to snub some white boy that comes along and tries to introduce a bunch of fancy modal ideas into the blues.
The blues is very much these cat's Holy Grail and they have gate keepers who are more than willing to make the judgement as to what Blues is and what it is not. So in that respect they are much like the Manheim School of the classic period. Everything had to be approved by them.
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
For a given melody there is an infinite number of possible harmonies that are compatible with it. For any harmonic progression there is an infinite number of possible melodies. The trick is knowing where to start! The answer is that you can start anywhere! And we haven't even discussed counter-melody (two melodies played at the same time) yet!
Guitar Toad said:
For a given melody there is an infinite number of possible harmonies that are compatible with it. For any harmonic progression there is an infinite number of possible melodies. The trick is knowing where to start! The answer is that you can start anywhere! And we haven't even discussed counter-melody (two melodies played at the same time) yet!
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Just thought i'd add my 2 cents worth here.First of all CHITCAN all the LEARN TO PLAY GUITAR BOOKS thats step one,listen to all types of music,even music that is of no interest to you,thats step two,go back in time and listen to the oldies,
i'm talking 50s/60s sounds,thats step three.The rest is up to you,just remember this-You may sound like your music Idol,but you will never play like him/her.Create your own style and sound,It pisses me off to no end to have someone come up and tell me that I play just like Gatemouth Brown,I may sound
like Gatemouth but I,ll never play like him. Play what you feel and you'll be just fine.BB King will be the first to tell you"I DON'T KNOW NO CHORDS".
Just thought i'd add my 2 cents worth here.First of all CHITCAN all the LEARN TO PLAY GUITAR BOOKS thats step one,listen to all types of music,even music that is of no interest to you,thats step two,go back in time and listen to the oldies,
i'm talking 50s/60s sounds,thats step three.The rest is up to you,just remember this-You may sound like your music Idol,but you will never play like him/her.Create your own style and sound,It pisses me off to no end to have someone come up and tell me that I play just like Gatemouth Brown,I may sound
like Gatemouth but I,ll never play like him. Play what you feel and you'll be just fine.BB King will be the first to tell you"I DON'T KNOW NO CHORDS".
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
In my childhood (about elementary school) I was like everyone else! Fixated on the POP music of that era. When everyone of my favorite artist's would release a new record, the radio stations would immediately pick it up and start playing it on the air. I was always disappointed by new releases because I had become accustom to hearing their previous releases over and over! I was conditioned by the repetition of the media pushing their previous stuff. But the more I was "forced" to listen to the new stuff the more I began to like it! Until the new stuff became my new favorite.
Music is like that. People change! Their ears and tastes evolve over time, but only if they are open minded enough, or adventurous enough to allow the process to take root! You see it's very much like an evolutionary process.
If a performer had played a simple Cmaj7 chord in Motzart's day, he probably would have people running from the opera house and screaming in horror! Then he probably would have been ex-communicated from the church, condemned by the Pope and burned for practicing witchcraft! :chairfall That chord was way too dissonant for their classical period ears to handle.
It's funny because by today's standard, a Cmaj7 is considered a mellow/soothing chord! As the ions progressed people's tolerances became more sophisticated. Until we've reached our current state of the art when cat's are playing 7(b5)'s, 7+'s, b9's, +9's, 11ths and 13ths! Theory has evolved as well in order to more accurately describe modern tonalities.
Pat Metheny often points out in his seminars that he can hear nearly all 12 notes of the chromatic scale against any chord! With the possible exception of the Minor with a Maj 7th. So there are no "wrong notes" just notes that are misunderstood! :laugh2:
Guitar Toad said:
In my childhood (about elementary school) I was like everyone else! Fixated on the POP music of that era. When everyone of my favorite artist's would release a new record, the radio stations would immediately pick it up and start playing it on the air. I was always disappointed by new releases because I had become accustom to hearing their previous releases over and over! I was conditioned by the repetition of the media pushing their previous stuff. But the more I was "forced" to listen to the new stuff the more I began to like it! Until the new stuff became my new favorite.
Music is like that. People change! Their ears and tastes evolve over time, but only if they are open minded enough, or adventurous enough to allow the process to take root! You see it's very much like an evolutionary process.
If a performer had played a simple Cmaj7 chord in Motzart's day, he probably would have people running from the opera house and screaming in horror! Then he probably would have been ex-communicated from the church, condemned by the Pope and burned for practicing witchcraft! :chairfall That chord was way too dissonant for their classical period ears to handle.
It's funny because by today's standard, a Cmaj7 is considered a mellow/soothing chord! As the ions progressed people's tolerances became more sophisticated. Until we've reached our current state of the art when cat's are playing 7(b5)'s, 7+'s, b9's, +9's, 11ths and 13ths! Theory has evolved as well in order to more accurately describe modern tonalities.
Pat Metheny often points out in his seminars that he can hear nearly all 12 notes of the chromatic scale against any chord! With the possible exception of the Minor with a Maj 7th. So there are no "wrong notes" just notes that are misunderstood! :laugh2:
Last edited:
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Toad! Just because my handle on the forum is "Osensei", I'm going to say this, "YOU MUST FOCUS"! If I'm looking at a piece of music and I see a chord then nothing else exists! The only thing that exists for me during those few milliseconds in time is that 1 chord! No key signature! Just that 1 chord. Next I then focus everything I know theoretically (scales, modes, arpeggios) on that one chord! The rest of the song doesn't exist (not completely true but almost)!
From the knowledge that I have accumulated about the one chord I should know which scales or modes sound good when I play them against that one chord. Not the key signature the song is in! NO NO! The key signature does not exist! Just that one chord. Now when I look at the scales that sound good with my one chord (there are many) then I realize that my chord has a family. So now I have a daddy chord and a bunch of little scales that have the same "genes" (chord tones/ extension) as their father. From all of these little scales, I pick one. I know its supposed to sound good with my 1 chord because it came from the family (domain or chord universe! remember?).
"Why am I ignoring the key signature?", you might ask! For the same reason I don't call the cops on a drug lord! Cause I know he's gonna be back on the streets the next day with my address in his wallet! The key signature doesn't enforce anything! At least not consistantly! Therefore, I cannot depend on it!
By focusing on a single chord at a time and applying melodic ideas against it that are derived from its family of scales, I have created a time machine. I know have complete control over each instance in the great stream of time. The ear can only hear what's happening in the present moment. What you played before is but a memory what you will play next is yet to become. The current chord is the, "Right here! Right now!".
Toad! Just because my handle on the forum is "Osensei", I'm going to say this, "YOU MUST FOCUS"! If I'm looking at a piece of music and I see a chord then nothing else exists! The only thing that exists for me during those few milliseconds in time is that 1 chord! No key signature! Just that 1 chord. Next I then focus everything I know theoretically (scales, modes, arpeggios) on that one chord! The rest of the song doesn't exist (not completely true but almost)!
From the knowledge that I have accumulated about the one chord I should know which scales or modes sound good when I play them against that one chord. Not the key signature the song is in! NO NO! The key signature does not exist! Just that one chord. Now when I look at the scales that sound good with my one chord (there are many) then I realize that my chord has a family. So now I have a daddy chord and a bunch of little scales that have the same "genes" (chord tones/ extension) as their father. From all of these little scales, I pick one. I know its supposed to sound good with my 1 chord because it came from the family (domain or chord universe! remember?).
"Why am I ignoring the key signature?", you might ask! For the same reason I don't call the cops on a drug lord! Cause I know he's gonna be back on the streets the next day with my address in his wallet! The key signature doesn't enforce anything! At least not consistantly! Therefore, I cannot depend on it!
By focusing on a single chord at a time and applying melodic ideas against it that are derived from its family of scales, I have created a time machine. I know have complete control over each instance in the great stream of time. The ear can only hear what's happening in the present moment. What you played before is but a memory what you will play next is yet to become. The current chord is the, "Right here! Right now!".
Last edited:
JohnnyGuitar
New member
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Mixolydian is what happens when jazz snobs play the blues/ :13:
Just kidding... the minute I got the hang of it I've started incorporating all modes into my playing. The easiest way for me was to figure out how would they relate to the blues pentatonic patterns that I play.
Now I just play whatever I feel or think and in the middle I sometimes notice stuff like- hey that was a harmonic minor I just did... cool....
:kabong:
Osensei said:
Mixolydian is what happens when jazz snobs play the blues/ :13:
Just kidding... the minute I got the hang of it I've started incorporating all modes into my playing. The easiest way for me was to figure out how would they relate to the blues pentatonic patterns that I play.
Now I just play whatever I feel or think and in the middle I sometimes notice stuff like- hey that was a harmonic minor I just did... cool....
:kabong:
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
Yeah but many have tried and failed. We owe the birth of Classic Rock to the advent of whites back in the Woodstock era trying to learn to play the blues. What emerged turned out to be Rock! I'm sad to say that I'm old enough to remember those days! :laugh2: I remember how many of them started out on the BBC circuit!
I'm sad to say that I have come across both blues and jazz dudes from the old school that in my opinion will snub a cat simply because he's white. I was having a discussion with a dude just the other day, when I brought up Pat Martino's name. The dude just grimissed and exclaimed, "Naw! When I think guitar his name doesn't come up!". I know that's BS!
Today more and more white cats are coming up with a pure blues sound and I think blues will be all the better for it! It took some time but there's finally some fruit on that old tree! Rock on!
jazzerlbn said:
Yeah but many have tried and failed. We owe the birth of Classic Rock to the advent of whites back in the Woodstock era trying to learn to play the blues. What emerged turned out to be Rock! I'm sad to say that I'm old enough to remember those days! :laugh2: I remember how many of them started out on the BBC circuit!
I'm sad to say that I have come across both blues and jazz dudes from the old school that in my opinion will snub a cat simply because he's white. I was having a discussion with a dude just the other day, when I brought up Pat Martino's name. The dude just grimissed and exclaimed, "Naw! When I think guitar his name doesn't come up!". I know that's BS!
Today more and more white cats are coming up with a pure blues sound and I think blues will be all the better for it! It took some time but there's finally some fruit on that old tree! Rock on!
Last edited:
Guitar Toad
Toadily Stratologist
Re: Forget Modes - Advice That Set Me Free
If a guy wants to be a musical conservative and be a bit old school and utilize key signatures, then that ought to be ok. If a person would rather be a musical progressive and throw key sigs completely out the window, then that is ok also. Old school is okay, the progressive is ok. I'm ok you're ok.
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to hammer the guys who wish to use key signatures. They've worked for many years. They can be a good way to learn and use as guidelines. Although, they can be creatively restrictive, but as a person gains knowledge and experience, then he may be in a better place to 'break' the rules and adopt a free-er approach.
But, I see the progressive's point. The way to get out of the ruts of sounding like everyone else may be to break the templates and define your own. That sounds really hard. Although, I like the sound of it.
Here's a quote from Rembrandt that I like:
If a guy wants to be a musical conservative and be a bit old school and utilize key signatures, then that ought to be ok. If a person would rather be a musical progressive and throw key sigs completely out the window, then that is ok also. Old school is okay, the progressive is ok. I'm ok you're ok.
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to hammer the guys who wish to use key signatures. They've worked for many years. They can be a good way to learn and use as guidelines. Although, they can be creatively restrictive, but as a person gains knowledge and experience, then he may be in a better place to 'break' the rules and adopt a free-er approach.
But, I see the progressive's point. The way to get out of the ruts of sounding like everyone else may be to break the templates and define your own. That sounds really hard. Although, I like the sound of it.
Here's a quote from Rembrandt that I like:
There may be something in that quote for us as guitarists. I know there is for me.
Last edited:
