Myths

[ez_willis]

I'm still not sure if I want to learn theory or not.

 

[true-eurt]

My last and final myth: This thread will end at some point.

That reminds me...Ever see the movie "Vanishing point" 1971...Kowalski and Supersoul on the radio....has some excellent car driving in it....

 

[mshilarious]

There was a rule on "Usenet" called "Godwinn's Rule" which was that any thread must end when the word "Hitler" comes up.

Any thread where you've been beating a dead horse for 6 or more pages really [REALLY] should end.

Whaddaya say? Time to give it a portion or what?

Photo Cropping courtesy of EveAnna Manley of Manley Laboratories®

But nobody mentioned Hitler . . . how about reposting your photo of Hitler using Neumanns?

 

[ez_willis]

What kind of preamp for under $50 would Hitler use to beat a dead horse with? Preferebly a tubed preamp because he likes that warm tubed sound.

 

[snow lizard]

I think Bumblefoot has a tune called Myth.


sl

 

[mrT]

That reminds me...Ever see the movie "Vanishing point" 1971...Kowalski and Supersoul on the radio....has some excellent car driving in it....

Hell Yes. That's an awesome movie! Charger R/T with a pistol grip, Drugs, Sex, Bikes, Stickin it to the mother-fuckin Police... what's not to love?

 

[dgatwood]

Stravinsky is Picasso, but nicer

Vai could be Paganini, I suppose.

Picasso? Stravinsky is more like Van Gogh. Van Gogh cut off his ear... probably to avoid listening to Stravinsky again. (I say this jokingly, since Van Gogh died when Stravinsky was about 8, but....)

Actually, better parallel... Van Gogh's art went nuts at some point. Stravinsky... likewise.

 

[brendandwyer]

This dude is nuts.

AC/DC was more popular than Steve Vai. That is the reason they sold more records. It has nothing to do with theory.

Talent without popularity and marekting results in low record sales

Technical Ability and understanding without popularity and marketing results in low record sales

Seems to me record sales depend more on marketing than on either talent or technical ability.

And if you'd like evidence of that check out the top 40

 

[mithra6]

Your recordings suck because you suck as a musician. Im sorry. Either realize or suffer.

I'm not going to claim I am a great engineer or musician. However my goal in home recording was to give me the opportunity to take full control of my own music. I was tired of depending on other musicians who would always crap out at the last minute. My second goal is to make recordings that didn't make me cringe when I heard them.

So defying what many say I should do - mostly because I don't have the money to take people's advice, I use a two port TonePort from Line 6. I mic my Vox amp with a SM 57. Lately my recordings sound about 80-90% the way I want. Of course I have figured out some simple tricks here and there along the way. Again my goal is NOT to sound like a big-budget studio. I just want to sound good to my ears.

So I think a big myth is if you want a home studio you HAVE to spend billions and have a sound-proof/perfect acoustic room. For SOME people this is neccessary, but not for everyone. Yes in a perfect world we will have everything right. For my purposes I am making good recordings. They aren't professional, but I like it. In the end isn't that why we are here?

I know a guy who spend thousands and thousands of dollars on equipment and could never get his music right. Almost all of his sounds were straight from a keyboard. He was EQing, routing, adding a shitload of effects, etc, and his music still sounded like crap. Eventually he figured out it wasn't his equipment - thousands of dollars later.

 

[giraffe]

And if you'd like evidence of that check out the top 40

the musicians that play on that crap are the best in thier class,
and the people that write that crap are at the top of thier game.....
you just think it's a stupid game (as do i)

 

[EDAN]

I ask you these questions because it is becoming more and more appearant to me that you have achived some level mediocrity but are unaware of, or do not care about, the bigger picture. Vai is 10,000 times the musician, in evey sense of the word, than all of AC/DC put together. More expressive, more effective, more articulate, more intelligent, more everything. AC/DC is a toddler who can only paint smiley faces, but they make you feel good in a small way. Vai is Picasso. It just makes no sense to say that the toddler is the better painter because 10 million people bought a smiley face and only 1000 people bought Picasso. What it DOES mean is that a small number of people are move advanced than the masses in their ability to really understand, appreciate, and experience art.

That is, of course, my opinion.

And my opinion is that ACDC are far and away more popular for a reason, their songs move you. You can't leanr to write a simple lick like in Back and Black, Steve CAN'T learn to do that, that's the magic that's missing from someone like Vai. To say I'd rather be able to do what Angus can do rather than what Vai can do is the understatment of the century. For all Vai's capabilities, he can't come up with anything remotely as fulfilling as Highway to Hell, Hells Bells, Shake A Leg, You Shook Me ..etc. Hey, I love Zep even more and they did everything from country to rock to metal to funk and half of their stuff was a acoustic. Vai is certainly a far "better" guitarist than was/is Page, but come on, Page had more talent in his pinky and it shows, it all comes down to the song, Angus and Jimmy P as well as Eddie and Jimmy H as well as Eric C and Keith R etc etc have something that is far more important. No t sure wha you mean "some level of mediocrity" concering me, you've never heard a thing of mine, but here's where we completely disagree, there is nothing mediocre about ACDC or Led Zep or VH music, yet that word, mediocrity decribes a musician like Vai perfectly, being technically perfect means nothing, The great George Martin himself says, the mistakes, the tempo change etc makes the music alive.

 

[EDAN]

I think real musicians (real talent, not nessesarily schooled talent) find themselves attracted to theory in some way, and drive themselves to become more accomplished musicians.

Your comments in this thread make it clear that you're not attracted to theory in any way and you measure musical success in terms of units sold.

Say what you will. Here's another old saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

I have two sayings for you ..

Most out here seem to be into forms of "popular" music. I'm not talking units sold. I'm talking about legendary artists/bands that have sustained long careers and for good reason, they are good/great at what they do. Here's a saying for you "You can fool some of the people some of the times...." in other words you don't sustain a 20, 30 ,40 year career on luck, on marketing, on hype.

Here's another saying in response to yours "Yo Mama!"

 

[brendandwyer]

that's true, the mistakes sometimes make it more interesting, but knowledge of music theory does not by it's nature interfere in the creation of great music. That premise is flawed.

That would be like saying that a math genius who can only do math in his head is more impressive that the mathematician who studies math. I would say that a musician who can't read music is at a disadvantage. But that disadvantage has no bearing on his creativity, the two are mutually exclusive. Yet both can enhance the other.

As far as Vai is concerned, mediocrity is subjective and arguable. And what you think is mediocrity, some would view as genius. And the inverse is true of AC/DC. There are people who AC/DC does not appeal to.

That being said, what is the real argument here?

It seems to me that you are claiming that theory and technical knowledge INHIBITS creativity. I say that is an inherently flawed viewpoint. Technical ability and creativity only enhance each other, they do not detract from each other. That goes for a multitude of other art forms as well. In my humble opinion

 

[ez_willis]

So should I learn more theory or not?

 

[Zed10R]

Vai is certainly a far "better" guitarist than was/is Page, but come on, Page had more talent in his pinky and it shows, it all comes down to the song, Angus and Jimmy P as well as Eddie and Jimmy H as well as Eric C and Keith R etc etc have something that is far more important. No t sure wha you mean "some level of mediocrity" concering me, you've never heard a thing of mine, but here's where we completely disagree, there is nothing mediocre about ACDC or Led Zep or VH music, yet that word, mediocrity decribes a musician like Vai perfectly, being technically perfect means nothing,QUOTE]




Clapton and Van Halen are GREAT musicians. They are both in a different class beyond Angus and Keith. I'm suprised you even like them. Wait....I see a pattern here....all the examples you give of great music and musicianship are "vintage".....are you one of those guys that thinks music has already achieved it's zenith? Maybe you aren't able to see the steps of progress, let alone take any.

 

[brendandwyer]

i would think that in the course of a lifetime of music theory would be learned.

But i think of it this way. If you are going to be a hired studio musician working with larger studios, it would be essential to learn how to read music.

If you are a songwriter who wants to sell songs to labels, you should probably learn how to read music for transcription purposes.

If you are a home recordist playing songs you write, it's not necessary, but like i said, theory will be learned along the way.

I definatley wouldn't avoid it for fear that it would ruin your creativity, that just seems ignorant.

 

[ez_willis]

..all the examples you give of great music and musicianship are "vintage".....

You'd be hard pressed to prove him wrong, if that is what he's saying.

 

[Farview]

in other words you don't sustain a 20, 30 ,40 year career on luck, on marketing, on hype.

The only exception I can think of to this would be Kiss. I happen to be a fan, but most of the music doesn't hold up to Zep, aerosmith, and all the other stuff from that era that still gets played on classic rock stations.

 

[Zed10R]

You'd be hard pressed to prove him wrong, if that is what he's saying.

I wouldn't even try. The only closed mind you can open is your own.

 

[mrT]

The only exception I can think of to this would be Kiss. I happen to be a fan, but most of the music doesn't hold up to Zep, aerosmith, and all the other stuff from that era that still gets played on classic rock stations.

I always thought KISS dressed way too hardcore for their music. That and they made (I think) the most cliche rock songs. Not to say they didn't have a decent song or two but I wouldn't say they changed the way people thought of music. More about how they marketed it. I guess there is a line in music. The people that are in it for love and the people that are in it for money. I don't think KISS did it for love.