fraserhutch
Flypaper for freaks
So can we deflate those myths?mshilarious said:That's a myth
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
With pockets of exceptions perhaps in Nashville or LA, most session musicians I know or have heard of (at least around my digs) do both session work and play in live bands (both cover and original.) I've told the story here before about the one drummer I know who does a lot of studio work and schedules dates full-time or part-time for as many as 20 or 30 bands at a time. In fact it's common around here for your average quality musician (every one of whom knows at least some theory, BTW) to be in several cover or original bands at once as well as on the A-list call sheet for a few local studios. Maybe not 20-30 bands, Jerry is quite the exception. But 3-5 bands simultaneously is not unusual at all, and only one band is actually quite unusual.
Not one of these guys could survive at all if they didn't have at least *some* theory under their belt. Like msh said, they have to learn songs, often having only a couple of practices with the others before they have to take it live. If you cant talk and understand musical detail when working with the other musicians, you are going to get lost in the dust *real* fast and the band ins't going to keep you on. In fact, they often have to play something on-the-fly for the first time at the gig when a table of listeners (or a single drunk ) gets together and collects $50 or $100 to throw on stage to pay for a request the band has never done before. When the one guy in the band who is somewhat familiar with the song starts calling out chord changes and tempos and whatnot, you gotta know what the hell he's talking about and adapt to it toot sweet, or you are again in the dust and on the skids.
That that thing about session musicians just being worker bees is a load of crap too, as is obvious if you ever heard an experienced, successful session musician play. The reason these guys are hired is not only for their professionalism, but for their sound. For example, just for the sake of argument, if you hired Carlos Santana to play on your next album, any blind and even half-deaf person would be able to recognize his playing a mile away. He's not just a worker bee, he is a guitarist who has a style and a way of arranging his playing that has a sound all his own. It's the same with these guys. They can keep gigs and get phone calls from the studios because they have a sound or a style that they bring to the studio that makes their part their own. It's like a good actor; they get parts because the director wants that actor, but the good actor makes the part his own. Sure, often the musician be asked to "play like Carlos Santana" instead of like themselves, whether they want to or not (it is a job, after all). So what? They still get paid for doing what they love, and probably learn something new in the bargain ("Hmmm, I never thought of doing it THAT way before"). Do they all always like it? Of course not. But that's what the live gigs with their buds are for, to get their ya ya's out after a few days of "office work."
In the meantime, they are getting th extra money to send their kid off to college. Yes they are real people with real lives and real families; it not just sex, drugs and rock and roll by a long shot. In fact, 3 of the 4 guys in one of the bands I work with (one of them including the drummer I referred to) have wives and kids and drive their minivans to the gig.
G.
Not one of these guys could survive at all if they didn't have at least *some* theory under their belt. Like msh said, they have to learn songs, often having only a couple of practices with the others before they have to take it live. If you cant talk and understand musical detail when working with the other musicians, you are going to get lost in the dust *real* fast and the band ins't going to keep you on. In fact, they often have to play something on-the-fly for the first time at the gig when a table of listeners (or a single drunk
) gets together and collects $50 or $100 to throw on stage to pay for a request the band has never done before. When the one guy in the band who is somewhat familiar with the song starts calling out chord changes and tempos and whatnot, you gotta know what the hell he's talking about and adapt to it toot sweet, or you are again in the dust and on the skids.That that thing about session musicians just being worker bees is a load of crap too, as is obvious if you ever heard an experienced, successful session musician play. The reason these guys are hired is not only for their professionalism, but for their sound. For example, just for the sake of argument, if you hired Carlos Santana to play on your next album, any blind and even half-deaf person would be able to recognize his playing a mile away. He's not just a worker bee, he is a guitarist who has a style and a way of arranging his playing that has a sound all his own. It's the same with these guys. They can keep gigs and get phone calls from the studios because they have a sound or a style that they bring to the studio that makes their part their own. It's like a good actor; they get parts because the director wants that actor, but the good actor makes the part his own. Sure, often the musician be asked to "play like Carlos Santana" instead of like themselves, whether they want to or not (it is a job, after all). So what? They still get paid for doing what they love, and probably learn something new in the bargain ("Hmmm, I never thought of doing it THAT way before"). Do they all always like it? Of course not. But that's what the live gigs with their buds are for, to get their ya ya's out after a few days of "office work."
In the meantime, they are getting th extra money to send their kid off to college. Yes they are real people with real lives and real families; it not just sex, drugs and rock and roll by a long shot. In fact, 3 of the 4 guys in one of the bands I work with (one of them including the drummer I referred to) have wives and kids and drive their minivans to the gig.
G.
famous beagle
Well-known member
SouthSIDE Glen said:With pockets of exceptions perhaps in Nashville or LA, most session musicians I know or have heard of (at least around my digs) do both session work and play in live bands (both cover and original.) I've told the story here before about the one drummer I know who does a lot of studio work and schedules dates full-time or part-time for as many as 20 or 30 bands at a time. In fact it's common around here for your average quality musician (every one of whom knows at least some theory, BTW) to be in several cover or original bands at once as well as on the A-list call sheet for a few local studios. Maybe not 20-30 bands, Jerry is quite the exception. But 3-5 bands simultaneously is not unusual at all, and only one band is actually quite unusual.
Not one of these guys could survive at all if they didn't have at least *some* theory under their belt. Like msh said, they have to learn songs, often having only a coule of practices with the others before they have to take it live. If you cant talk and understand musical detail when working with the other musicians, you are going to get lost in the dust *real* fast and the band ins't going to keep you on. In fact, they often have to play something on-the-fly for the first time at the gig when a table of listeners (or a single drunk
That that thing about session musicians just being worker bees is a load of crap too, as is obvious if you ever heard an experienced, successful session musician play. The reason these guys are hired is not only for their professionalism, but for their sound. For example, just for the sake of argument, if you hired Carlos Santana to play on your next album, any blind and even half-deap people would be able to recognize his playing a mile away. He's not just a worker bee, he is a guitarist who has a syile and a way of arranging his playing that has a sound all his own. It's the same with these guys. They can keep gigs because they have a sound or a style that they bring to the studio that makes their part their own. It's like a good actor; they get parts because the director wants that actor, but the good actor makes the part his own. Sure, often the musician be asked to "play like Carlos Santana" instead of like themselves, whether they want to or not (it is a job, after all). So what? They still get paid for doing what they love, and probably learn something new in the bargain ("Hmmm, I never thought of doing it THAT way before"). Do they all always like it? Of course not. But that's what the live gigs with their buds are for, to get their ya ya's out after a few days of "office work."
In the meantime, they are getting th extra money to send their kid off to college. Yes they are real people with real lives and real families; it not just sex, drugs and rock and roll by a long shot. In fact, 3 of the 4 guys in one of the bands I work with (one of them including the drummer I referred to) have wives and kids and drive their minivans to the gig.
G.
Sure. This is all good in my book.
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with EDAN about people either "having it" or not as well. Of course there are some people who are more natural than others, but there are tons of shades of gray when it comes to "natural talent" and learned ability.
Obviously knowing theory is going to help you as a studio musician/hired gun. You have to be able to speak the language if you want to communicate.
However, if you're not wanting to go that route, then theory is not essential. I think it's really that simple.
And no matter how many times Fraserhutch wants to say it, I refuse to believe that Stevie Ray was not a "good musician" (in his case, outstanding) just because he didn't know any music theory.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
If one is not going to play live cover bands, not going to be a session musician, and not going to play at all with any other musicians, then they can get away with no theory, you're right.famous beagle said:
You'll find them at Starbucks singing "Horse With No Name" with their guitar case open in front of them and the computer analyst customers drinking $6 coffees and ignoring them while the poor musician's wife is at home packing up the kids into the suitcases and heading back to mama's house in Lafyette, Indiana.
Romantic, isn't it?
Unless they just so happen to have the natural talent of a SRV, in which case jobs will find you. But only one out of how many millions of wannabe musicians will be that gifted or lucky?[/QUOTE]
G.
famous beagle
Well-known member
southside glen said:
Yeah, or I suppose you could find them changing pop music forever, writing songs like "Yesterday," "Elenor Rigby," "Smells Like Teen Spirit," and the like.
osus
New member
First off, this is a great thread and a really interesting subject, especially to anyone who is making music in genres that were defined by people with limited musical training--the descendents of blues, folk, etc.
I've been having this same discussion back and forth with the cellist in my rock band. Namely because cello is a difficult instrument and while he's very talented, he has a long way to go. He is, however, reticent to take lessons becuase he believes music theory robs the soul out of music (an opinion that has been expressed in this thread by various individuals, to varying extents).
I used to feel much the same way--I played in a band with a prog-rock nut who wanted to play everything in odd time signatures with a million unexpected changes, key shifts and dissonant chords. At the time I was interested in writing songs that hooked people and sucked them in. I thought if I learned all this theory crap, my music will get lost in it. He wanted complicated abstracts and esoterics, I wanted simple drama. We fought a lot--not because it was impossible to do both, but because we both thought it was impossible to do both.
I learned a hell of a lot from that kid. I still can't listen to Rush and say I enjoy it, but I learned a hell of a lot.
I'm still a complete maverick, don't read music, don't know the names of chords, but he opened my eyes, however unwillingly, to the (maybe ugly) fact that:
Rock music can be written using classical theory.
This kinda hit me one day as a bit of revelation. It's pretty simple, but it sorta knocked the wind out of my rock-is-rebellion-break-the-rules attitude. If this stuff can be described accurately by the theories that many of it's followers disdain, just how rule-breaking is it? When you look at rock from a music theory perspective, it's a very simple, law-abiding citizen. Of course there are many and very notable exceptions, but for the most part, it plays by the rules. It typically walks down the same same streets. Usually, the more rebellious the attitude of the musicians (Punk, Rap) the simpler, theoretically they get. This isn't really an issue, but realizing this definitely changed the way I looked at my chosen pursuits.
A lot of this came into focus for me when I started dating an classically trained singer. Some of the stuff that she has to do is seriously rule-breaking, and considerably more musically rebellious than anything I've ever come up with. As I learned more and more from her about other culture's musical traditions, the world outside of the octaval scale, people like Harry Partch and Meredith Monk, I realized just how myopic my assessment that rock and pop music were challenging the grand old classical tradition with its stuffy theoretical conceits was. The grand old classical tradition got over itself a long time ago. The rebellion started long before rock entered the scene. But, rock did still enter the scene. And people still love Mozart. And a good deal of the most musically rebellious stuff composed leave many average listeners feeling alienated.
Which brings me to my cellist. The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that whether we like it or not, if we're playing in tune, if we're writing harmonies, we're learning music theory. The instruments that we're playing, the range of tones that they can create and the melodies and harmonies we most commonly create on them are subject to the principles of music theory. (I know that's not strictly true--tempered pianos, physics, etc.) While there are people in the 'low art' music genres who do acutally break these rules, they are very few, and only exceptionally successful (I mean that last bit every way you can read it). For the most part, I think we have to realize that A) You have to play in tune and B) If you're playing in tune, learning music theory can really only help.
I think a casual understanding of music theory, or at the very least the admission that most unschooled music created today still stems from principles devised by people who studied behooves most musicians. I think that to say you can play guitar, for instance, better without training--that you can flip those music-theory snobs off--is more than a little wrongheaded, since the guitar's fretboard and tuning structure are part of the legacy of those very same music-theory snobs.
As many other people have pointed out, however, learning music theory doesn't stop you from sucking, nor does ignorance of music theory prevent you from writing good music. But, as it as has also been said before, it can help you get to where you want to go. Having learned a lot from where I started from, I've found it much easier to write music that is simultaneously catchy, direct, emotive and structurally, melodically and harmonically interesting. My ambitions have grown, but I've yet to look back on a simple song that I cherished and feel like my education has ruined it. And I just wrote a 4/4 verse-chorus two-chorder the other day that my opera-singer girlfriend thinks pretty highly of. Regardless of what you know, music is still a matter of taste.
If you want to start going down the music-theory road, I applaud you. You're free to jump off at any point, and if having travelled it you return to four-on-the-floor beats and three-chord progressions and feel like the life has been sucked out of them, well, that's a shame. I still like a good romp.
Now if I could just get my cellist to learn how to tune...
I've been having this same discussion back and forth with the cellist in my rock band. Namely because cello is a difficult instrument and while he's very talented, he has a long way to go. He is, however, reticent to take lessons becuase he believes music theory robs the soul out of music (an opinion that has been expressed in this thread by various individuals, to varying extents).
I used to feel much the same way--I played in a band with a prog-rock nut who wanted to play everything in odd time signatures with a million unexpected changes, key shifts and dissonant chords. At the time I was interested in writing songs that hooked people and sucked them in. I thought if I learned all this theory crap, my music will get lost in it. He wanted complicated abstracts and esoterics, I wanted simple drama. We fought a lot--not because it was impossible to do both, but because we both thought it was impossible to do both.
I learned a hell of a lot from that kid. I still can't listen to Rush and say I enjoy it, but I learned a hell of a lot.
I'm still a complete maverick, don't read music, don't know the names of chords, but he opened my eyes, however unwillingly, to the (maybe ugly) fact that:
Rock music can be written using classical theory.
This kinda hit me one day as a bit of revelation. It's pretty simple, but it sorta knocked the wind out of my rock-is-rebellion-break-the-rules attitude. If this stuff can be described accurately by the theories that many of it's followers disdain, just how rule-breaking is it? When you look at rock from a music theory perspective, it's a very simple, law-abiding citizen. Of course there are many and very notable exceptions, but for the most part, it plays by the rules. It typically walks down the same same streets. Usually, the more rebellious the attitude of the musicians (Punk, Rap) the simpler, theoretically they get. This isn't really an issue, but realizing this definitely changed the way I looked at my chosen pursuits.
A lot of this came into focus for me when I started dating an classically trained singer. Some of the stuff that she has to do is seriously rule-breaking, and considerably more musically rebellious than anything I've ever come up with. As I learned more and more from her about other culture's musical traditions, the world outside of the octaval scale, people like Harry Partch and Meredith Monk, I realized just how myopic my assessment that rock and pop music were challenging the grand old classical tradition with its stuffy theoretical conceits was. The grand old classical tradition got over itself a long time ago. The rebellion started long before rock entered the scene. But, rock did still enter the scene. And people still love Mozart. And a good deal of the most musically rebellious stuff composed leave many average listeners feeling alienated.
Which brings me to my cellist. The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that whether we like it or not, if we're playing in tune, if we're writing harmonies, we're learning music theory. The instruments that we're playing, the range of tones that they can create and the melodies and harmonies we most commonly create on them are subject to the principles of music theory. (I know that's not strictly true--tempered pianos, physics, etc.) While there are people in the 'low art' music genres who do acutally break these rules, they are very few, and only exceptionally successful (I mean that last bit every way you can read it). For the most part, I think we have to realize that A) You have to play in tune and B) If you're playing in tune, learning music theory can really only help.
I think a casual understanding of music theory, or at the very least the admission that most unschooled music created today still stems from principles devised by people who studied behooves most musicians. I think that to say you can play guitar, for instance, better without training--that you can flip those music-theory snobs off--is more than a little wrongheaded, since the guitar's fretboard and tuning structure are part of the legacy of those very same music-theory snobs.
As many other people have pointed out, however, learning music theory doesn't stop you from sucking, nor does ignorance of music theory prevent you from writing good music. But, as it as has also been said before, it can help you get to where you want to go. Having learned a lot from where I started from, I've found it much easier to write music that is simultaneously catchy, direct, emotive and structurally, melodically and harmonically interesting. My ambitions have grown, but I've yet to look back on a simple song that I cherished and feel like my education has ruined it. And I just wrote a 4/4 verse-chorus two-chorder the other day that my opera-singer girlfriend thinks pretty highly of. Regardless of what you know, music is still a matter of taste.
If you want to start going down the music-theory road, I applaud you. You're free to jump off at any point, and if having travelled it you return to four-on-the-floor beats and three-chord progressions and feel like the life has been sucked out of them, well, that's a shame. I still like a good romp.
Now if I could just get my cellist to learn how to tune...
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Ah yes, the Belief of the High School Basketball Player; hundreds of thousands of them will all be the next Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant.famous beagle said:
There are two hundred million musicians out there who are striving to be the next Guthrie, Lennon or Cobain. One or two or three of them will, through a combination of innate genius and luck. Another one thousand or so will get really close to that level by working their way up through the ranks the hard way. Another hundred thousand or so will work their way to be able to actually make a decent full-time living as a musician. Another five million will supplant their day jobs by working part time in cover bands at night. The remaining 194,898,997 will either wind up at Starbucks (fortunately there are more than enough Starbucks to handle that load
) or sell their instruments on eBay and get "real jobs."If one wants to beat those odds, they had better learn as much as they can, including the difference between an A chord and the A Team.
G.
Farview
Well-known member
Two more myths:
1. Learning music theory will take the soul out of your music
2. Playing to a click track will take the feel out of your performance.
1. Learning music theory will take the soul out of your music
2. Playing to a click track will take the feel out of your performance.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
osus,osus said:
Welcome to the board. Great post and a good point well-stated, IMHO.
G.
eraos
Local Spiderman
Farview said:
I agree.
Unless of course the band can't stay on and is constantly playing catch up with the click.
Farview
Well-known member
eraos said:
Playing badly to a click will take the feel away. That is not a myth.
mshilarious
Banned
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I pity the fool who doesn't learn the types of sixth chords!
While I typed that sentence, Mr. T pitied 23 fools
S
soundchaser59
Reluctant Commander
Fletcher said:
Hey Fletcher.....
If you have time, there is a new guy who posted a question over in the microphones forum wanting to know if he will fry his Beyer M160 ribbon by using it with a Mackie board that has global phantom power.
The safe answer is "don't do it."
But maybe you can jump over there and let himknow if it really is safe or not?? I am curious myself why you said that in the "myth" thread, cuz I'm getting ready to buy an M130.
Thanks! - SC
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
The Beyer M130 has a built-in ungrounded transformer, with no center tap. There is no way you can fry the mic, unless pin 2 or 3 of either XLR gets tied to ground. All the DC voltage is blocked by the transformer, which will only pass AC.
B
boingoman
New member
Harvey Gerst said:
Unless I'm mistaken, that was how this idea came about, right? Many older mics (like 30 years ago or so) had transformers with grounded center taps?
Fletcher
New member
Rico 52 said:
Yeah bro... I do that this shit really seriously... probably too seriously but I'll work that out with my therapist.
Thanks for the welcome... and yes, my avatar is indeed Albert DeSalvo... see, I live just outside of Boston and I'm kind of [understatement of the year] an asshole... and I know the thread that started this mess was about "Beggar's Banquet"... but the avatar thing was inspired by a song off "Let It Bleed"...
As for the phantom power myth thing... I've been over that one so many times that a simple search on damn near any audio forum on the internet will net all information you'll ever want to know about ribbon mics and phantom power [or just go by Harvey's spot on comments].
Peace.
Cyrokk
Farce of Nature
Jillchaw said:
Sorry if this has already been said. I've only made it to about page three of this thread so far.
You should know right off the bat that I've been playing and writing music for nearly 25 years, the first eight years being classically trained in two brass instruments, plus interval and relative pitch training in the succeeding two years. I lost the desire to be a full time musician because I only weigh about 130lbs-a disincentive to being a starving musician.
Therefore, the ignorance that I'm about to spew is a little less as far up my ass than one might suspect.
While true, there are probably more musicians than not that are ignorant of theory, their lack of knowledge has nothing to do with their greatness as musicians.
If we are going to banter about hypothetical statistics, then I would say 98% of the best music written was from people who couldn't give shit one or shit two about music theory. When something sounds good, they combine it with something else that sounds good, until it becomes a cohesive masterpiece. It's only after that masterpiece is heard will someone usually say, "how the fuck did they do that?". That's when theory becomes useful. The only result from using theory as a road map to composition is that you end up sounding like the theory you are relying on. If that's the intent, then fine. But someone who approaches songwriting this way pretty much loses credibility in whining about how everything on the radio "sounds the same".
You can learn all the theory in the world but its still theory. You want to be a better songwriter? Stop listening to the same crap you've been listening to time and time again and immerse yourself in new styles.
I absolutely love Zeppelin, the primary reason being their songwriting. When I sit down to really analyze their stuff, I don't go "aha! They are playing 'Four Sticks' in a triplet 6/8 feel on top of 5/4 while the verse bridges and choruses are in 6/8; and 'The Crunge' is in 5/4 with 3/8+2/8 in the chorus!"
What I'm thinking is "holy shit! Plant OWNS the James Brown style on 'Trampled Underfoot'! And damn, no wonder Kashmir sounds so other-worldly. It's fused primarily with Indian and African sensibilities behind a standard backbeat!"
If you'd spent more time with the classical Masters, you would understand that creative genius comes from not using the rules, or more eloquently as Bach et. al have quoted, "know the rules, then forget them".
E
EDAN
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:Ah yes, the Belief of the High School Basketball Player; hundreds of thousands of them will all be the next Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant.
There are two hundred million musicians out there who are striving to be the next Guthrie, Lennon or Cobain. One or two or three of them will, through a combination of innate genius and luck. Another one thousand or so will get really close to that level by working their way up through the ranks the hard way. Another hundred thousand or so will work their way to be able to actually make a decent full-time living as a musician. Another five million will supplant their day jobs by working part time in cover bands at night. The remaining 194,898,997 will either wind up at Starbucks (fortunately there are more than enough Starbucks to handle that load
If one wants to beat those odds, they had better learn as much as they can, including the difference between an A chord and the A Team.
G.
There is no way possible to even estimate the percentage of people who will "make it." You can't put percentages on hard work, will, drive, determination and about a thousand other intangibles. Luck if hogwash, no such thing, this is a word people who never "made it" use to explain away their lack of success and why others did make it. I'm more inclined to believe anyone can make it, it takes a certain type of person and those type people are hard to come buy. Madonna made it, why? She can't sing, she can't dance, she's not that hot, it's because she knew what she wanted in life and went out and got it. 99% of the people who don't "make it," didn't make it because they didn't work hard enough.
Now, when we talk about learning theory, to me it's coming across as sitting in a classroom, reading books etc. That has NOTHING to do with the Madonna's of the world. If people gain some music theory unknowingly then fine, that's semantics, I'm talking about actually trying to learn theory, there is no correlation between the kind of success you speak of and formally learning about theory.
Creamyapples1
www.murphycabs.com
Sweet, It's been a few whole hours since we re-killed this horse. Fire it up again.
E
EDAN
New member
Cyrokk said:Sorry if this has already been said. I've only made it to about page three of this thread so far.
You should know right off the bat that I've been playing and writing music for nearly 25 years, the first eight years being classically trained in two brass instruments, plus interval and relative pitch training in the succeeding two years. I lost the desire to be a full time musician because I only weigh about 130lbs-a disincentive to being a starving musician.
Therefore, the ignorance that I'm about to spew is a little less as far up my ass than one might suspect.
While true, there are probably more musicians than not that are ignorant of theory, their lack of knowledge has nothing to do with their greatness as musicians.
If we are going to banter about hypothetical statistics, then I would say 98% of the best music written was from people who couldn't give shit one or shit two about music theory. When something sounds good, they combine it with something else that sounds good, until it becomes a cohesive masterpiece. It's only after that masterpiece is heard will someone usually say, "how the fuck did they do that?". That's when theory becomes useful. The only result from using theory as a road map to composition is that you end up sounding like the theory you are relying on. If that's the intent, then fine. But someone who approaches songwriting this way pretty much loses credibility in whining about how everything on the radio "sounds the same".
You can learn all the theory in the world but its still theory. You want to be a better songwriter? Stop listening to the same crap you've been listening to time and time again and immerse yourself in new styles.
GREAT post!
Ps. I'm sure someone believes Bonhams beat in Fool In The Rain could be better if he only knew about theory! Knowing theory has nothing to do with THAT and won't in anyway shape of form help improve on THAT! You are born with THAT!