Myths

[EDAN]

I personally think that some of EVH's playing is nice, but some of it is pretty darn lame, wanking, and pointless. But because he's "self-taught," he's brilliant. (Which is another huge myth ... NO ONE, unless they live their life on an island, is really "self-taught." Everyone learns from other sources, whether it's people, books, or whatever.)


I think Steve Vai's solo on "For the Love of God" is truly amazing and filled with emotion. I think EVH's "Eruption" is impressive, but it doesn't do anything for me emotionally.

In my opinion, EVH is pretty much a one-trick pony.

That's my opinion, which is all the whole "feel" argument boils down to anyway.

No, self taught means you didn't take lessons, you didn't study music, study theory, you god forbid go to school for it! But rather for the most part you taught yourself. Everyone learns something from someone, not everyone does the above mentioned things, they are "learned" " musically educated" and that is a world of difference from being self taught. Yes, there is such a thing as self taught.

As far as Vai goes, he is EXACTLY what I personally hate, or rather his music, playing and whole outlook. He is technically brilliant, he is techincally better than Eddie VH, but he doesn't have nearly the natural talent and the "it" factor. His playing reminds me of a computer, perfect in every sense, no tension, no "falling down the stairs and falling on your feet", one of Eddie's favorite sayings. Calling Eddie a one trick pony can only mean you aren't very familiar with his work. Listen to "Spanish Fly" or "Push Comes To Shove" or "Pleasure Dome" or "316" or the intro to "Women In Love" or "the Starfleet Project" with Brian May, Vai could NEVER play the blues like that.

 

[EDAN]

That was me. However, the only thing it proved was that you were bright enough to stay out of the way of the production. It wasn't anything special, just a bunch of nice sounding instruments playing an arrangement that had enough room for all of it. You would really have to try to screw that up.

Umm, Yeah, ok.

 

[EDAN]

Well the guitarists who say things like "I used the 3rd mode of harmonic minor to add an augmented feel over the relative minor changes" may very well have lost sight of something really important: a good melody.

But I don't think we were talking about that level of theory; at least I wasn't. Glen I know was not too. We were saying it's useful to know what key the song you're playing is in, what the chord progression is, how to transpose, etc.

More advanced concepts are also useful when taken in appropriate context. Let's take the example of what I call the "cheesy" modulation: I-II, ubiqitous in pop to give a song a lift between the final two choruses. Problem is, it is used so often and almost always without transition. Can we say cliche?

Instead, as a case study, review the bridge from this classic tune, "Cherish", by the Association, written by Terry Kirkman:

http://www.azchords.com/a/association-tabs-306/cherish-tabs-168962.html

(I don't think those chords are 100% right, but they're close enough for our purposes)

This is a great song with a beautiful melody, killer harmonies, and one of the greatest bridges ever written. An absolutely brilliant pop song and #1 for three months. Let's have a look! I ain't no genius of theory, like I said I studied it in high school, not college, so please correct errors:

The verses are in F, it's got a mixolydian thang goin' on with the Eb (VII), but that's pretty common in pop music, so nothing too unusual there. The last chord, C, on "cherish you" in each verse obscures the key a bit since its has an E instead of Eb. That adds some interest after verse 1, but it quickly resolves back to F and Eb for the second verse--modulation implied, but not accomplished.

It's a more useful trick after verse 2--going into the bridge, the C is repeated, then suddenly E! Hello! This ain't your average pop tune! The C is reinforced again after the E, that's a groovy augmented feel there. This is actually a good setup for a modulation.

But no! Kirkman keeps us hanging but is now deliberately confusing tonality, throwing out C, but then Cm to go back to the F Mixo feel, then on the last line of the bridge setting up the dominant motion from D7-G with lots of dissonant chords, then the first verse is repeated in the new key, one step higher than before.

Why did Kirkman do that? Because he was a theory geek? Because he was a music major and played two dozen instruments? Because he was too elitist to simply plop from F to G like every other loser songwriter?

Or because the tension-resolution followed by the dissonance in the bridge takes the listeners on an emotional journey that make them feel the turmoil of the lyric?

Gives me chills everytime I hear it.

But with all that going on, still there are people like me who don't like the song , so your point it lost to many. I thinka song like Yesterday with it's "cliche" arraingment and lyrics is far and away a better song. There is a magic that can't be explained in some songs, it has nothing to do with theory and it could be the same old chord stucture that's been done a million times. In fact I've heard song music by some in this thread waving the theory banner high and proud and most of it is the same old chords and progressions!

 

[mshilarious]

But with all that going on, still there are people like me who don't like the song , so your point it lost to many. I thinka song like Yesterday with it's "cliche" arraingment and lyrics is far and away a better song.

An arrangement done by and at the suggestion of George Martin, a trained musician.

 

[Farview]

There, I just dug out something that is more of an apples to apples comparison. It's from a long time ago, so you'll have to excuse the giant reverbs.

Heaven

www.soundclick.com/sillyhat

 

[mshilarious]

There, I just dug out something that is more of an apples to apples comparison. It's from a long time ago, so you'll have to excuse the giant reverbs.

Heaven

www.soundclick.com/sillyhat

It's a nice track. Intro is longish. I wanted a bit more variety than the ac guitars by the end.

Separate, though, that is a kickass tune. Nicely done.

 

[Dogman]

There, I just dug out something that is more of an apples to apples comparison. It's from a long time ago, so you'll have to excuse the giant reverbs.

Heaven

www.soundclick.com/sillyhat

Well, Mr. Hat so Silly, on my meager system, this shit sounds pretty decent. If'n I could get stuff sounding this good, I'd be pretty happy with myself....

Also, good tunes to listen to. I dig....

And I am talking of all teh tunes posted....especially Munsters.....

 

[EDAN]

An arrangement done by and at the suggestion of George Martin, a trained musician.

The song was written by Paul, the music was written by Paul, the guitar was played by Paul, the song was sung by Paul AND the string score was written and arrainged by both Paul and George. I personally always thought the strings got in the way a little, The first verse where there is no strings sound the best to me. Now, I love George Martin and surely he was a big part of what the Beatles did, but come on this is basically a guitar/vocal, take away the strings and the song stands bare bones on it's own anyway. I never said people trained in music are useless, they often help the talent in many ways, still the Beatles would have done just fine without George, they would have been a little different, but that kind of talent would have came through no matter who produced them

 

[EDAN]

There, I just dug out something that is more of an apples to apples comparison. It's from a long time ago, so you'll have to excuse the giant reverbs.

Heaven

www.soundclick.com/sillyhat

You should have left it alone. Your first comments after I listened to your work, although filled with envy so i understand, where uncalled for and untrue as you very well know. The fact you broke my response down after that and became even more of a smart ass means I have to take the kid gloves off. The latest recording sounds like a c+ home demo and no one with a right mind would compare it in quality to what I posted. Since you say you recorded something for WB, am I to assume you use high end gear? If so that's a shame as my little shit set up sounds, in my hands, far more professional.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

As far as Vai goes, he is EXACTLY what I personally hate, or rather his music, playing and whole outlook. He is technically brilliant, he is techincally better than Eddie VH, but he doesn't have nearly the natural talent and the "it" factor.

And who decides that? Who is the judge of who has "it" and who doesn't?

I personally am not fan of listening to the Vai/Satriani set either, I prefer something rawer and with more soul, like you. But to say that Vai or Satriani does not have "it" is the very height of snobbery. You are more guilty yourself of that then the people you criticize.

I love Son House as much as the next guy - perhaps more than many do. But to say that only those that grew up a sharecropper (or 100 years later in the streets of Harlem) and was born with a talent for a particular style of music and managed to do so against the odds with no technical knowledge is the ONLY definition of "it" is just the worst of politically correct snobbery.

Vai could NEVER play the blues like that.

That is a very narrow and incorrect prejudice as well. He could play roots blues that would make you cry. He just didn't record that stuff and wasn't his main interest; it bored the way his brain was wired. But give him a '40s Martin and sit him in front of a campfire with a bottle of JD and the rest of us, and he could deliver a version of "Red House" that would would leave you going home the next morning believing that he definitly had "it".

What's more, he could do it without having to practice to a recording and could do it in any key or any tempo you called out.

G.

 

[Farview]

You should have left it alone. Your first comments after I listened to your work, although filled with envy so i understand, where uncalled for and untrue as you very well know. The fact you broke my response down after that and became even more of a smart ass means I have to take the kid gloves off. The latest recording sound like a c+ home demo and no one with a right mind would compare it in quality to what I posted. Since you say you recorded something for WB ,am I to assume you use high end gear? If so that's a shame as my little shit set up sounds far more professional.

Heaven was recorded in 1995, (thus the giant reverbs) It was done on a cheap(Mackie) board, DA-88s, sm 57's, D-112, and an AT4033. All compression was done via (cringe) DBX. For effects, Lexicon Alex and a Digitech studio quad. Nothing even remotely high end.

Now, I'm using some better stuff depending on what studio I'm working out of. I don't subscribe to the notion of 'put a U87 infront of it and it will sound great', the difference between middle of the road stuff and the super high end is pretty minimal.

I've done albums on Warner, Epic, Metal Blade, Road Runner, Century Media, Red River, etc... What do you do for a living?

 

[EDAN]

And who decides that? Who is the judge of who has "it" and who doesn't?

I personally am not fan of listening to the Vai/Satriani set either, I prefer something rawer and with more soul, like you. But to say that Vai or Satriani does not have "it" is the very height of snobbery. You are more guilty yourself of that then the people you criticize.

I love Son House as much as the next guy - perhaps more than many do. But to say that only those that grew up a sharecropper (or 100 years later in the streets of Harlem) and was born with a talent for a particular style of music and managed to do so against the odds with no technical knowledge is the ONLY definition of "it" is just the worst of politically correct snobbery.

That is a very narrow and incorrect prejudice as well. He could play roots blues that would make you cry. He just didn't record that stuff and wasn't his main interest; it bored the way his brain was wired. But give him a '40s Martin and sit him in front of a campfire with a bottle of JD and the rest of us, and he could deliver a version of "Red House" that would would leave you going home the next morning believing that he definitly had "it".

What's more, he could do it without having to practice to a recording and could do it in any key or any tempo you called out.

G.

People with "it" know when other people have "it" or not. It's life, it may sound unfair, but it's what it is. Now, BB King has "it" and only knows four notes!

I've heard Vai play the blues in concert with David Lee Roth back in the late 80's and to a lesser extent a couple of cuts off Daves old solo albums, no not pure blues songs, but barrowing and he STINKS at it, I mean he has no taste whatsoever and sound like a fusion guy "trying" to cut it. Sure it's my opinion, but it's in informed one, after all I am the judge and jury of "it", lol.

 

[Dogman]

My myth, Number 1...
DM#1- Anything said on the internet is true...........

 

[mshilarious]

Lots of interesting bits about "Yesterday" on wikipedia:

On take 1, Paul can be heard giving chord changes to George Harrison before starting, but George does not appear to play

So apparently Sir Paul is perfectly capable of reading and writing a chart, and also recognizing the chords he was playing, even though he was detuned a step.

Also interesting is this:

http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/saki/yesterday-saki.html

George Martin explained that it was a nice song, but that it wasn't appropriate for heavy drumming. He then suggested a string quartette, and Paul thought it was a nice idea.

Yes, although accounts differ. Martin says in "Compleat" that he mentioned it wasn't really a Beatles-style song and would have to be done differently.

Suggesting the quartet arrangement brought initial cautionary reaction from Paul, who didn't want it to sound "like Mantovani", a well-known musical purveyor of what we might term "soft-core" classical arrangements.

On the other hand, Martin's spare, brisk, contemplative score for string quartet apparently agreed with the good Doctor, and Paul embraced that suggestion willingly.

The string quartet on "Yesterday" was a revolution in pop music. It was the real thing, biting bow sounds, counterpoint, etc., not the orchestral string wash common up until that point.

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xml...artin demands credit for yesterday_20_02_2006

He says, "We didn't know what to do with it. It was such a soppy tune, so I went away and wrote a score for a string quartet to go with it.

"Two days later I was rehearsing it and Paul McCartney walked in. He'd never seen a score before, and he said, 'It hasn't got my name on it.'

"So I handed him a pencil and he signed it.

They are both knights; let them settle it with a joust

 

[EDAN]

Heaven was recorded in 1995, (thus the giant reverbs) It was done on a cheap(Mackie) board, DA-88s, sm 57's, D-112, and an AT4033. All compression was done via (cringe) DBX. For effects, Lexicon Alex and a Digitech studio quad. Nothing even remotely high end.

Now, I'm using some better stuff depending on what studio I'm working out of. I don't subscribe to the notion of 'put a U87 infront of it and it will sound great', the difference between middle of the road stuff and the super high end is pretty minimal.

I've done albums on Warner, Epic, Metal Blade, Road Runner, Century Media, Red River, etc... What do you do for a living?

I'm rich beyond my dreams and as such don't need to work so I sit at home with my cheap gear and make better recordings than people who produce albums for indie lables. Now, you may ask yourself, if you are so rich why do you have cheap gear? Right? Are you asking yourself that? huh? well, are ya? well the answer is .. none of your damn business!

 

[Farview]

It's a nice track. Intro is longish. I wanted a bit more variety than the ac guitars by the end.

Separate, though, that is a kickass tune. Nicely done.

Thank you. That ac guitar was an ovation (not too fond of them) and it was only one performance, no layering.

 

[famous beagle]

People with "it" know when other people have "it" or not. It's life, it may sound unfair, but it's what it is.

I think this is the most laughable, ridiculously asinine thing I've ever read in my entire life.

 

[Dogman]

DM#2- people on the internet are cool just cuz they say they are.....

 

[mshilarious]

Quotes by EDAN

I'm not a pro by any standards and actually got by on instinct alone all these years, I'm a "wing it" (who need manuals!) kinda of guy, but my lack of any solid knowledge regarding recording beyond the basics has left me behind the curve and it's time to take this stuff a little more serious and I'm hoping along the way to learn as much as I can from you folks out here.

This stuff isn't rocket science! If you can't pick up an instrument and eventually make music on it all by your lonesome without anyone interfering and messing YOUR technique up than it's not meant to be. Now, this does not mean you don't put in the work, the practice, but if you need someone to teach you fingering techniques on guitar or piano, etc., or babbling about "theory" then maybe you should try a sport instead.

 

[Farview]

I'm rich beyond my dreams

Me too. I got that way being an audio professional. Music theory helped.


You might think you make better recordings, but I doubt you have what it takes to do this for real. You don't seem to have the temprament, open minded-ness, or background.