Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sgt Pepper: The Beatles Failure

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by onelife View Post
    Paganini was the Jimi Hendrix of his day.

    I don't think Hendrix necessarily wanted to be Paganini but I believe Yngwie Malmsteen did - or maybe he just wanted to be Ritchie Blackmore.
    Ygnwie sold a LOT of Paganini CDs back in the day.

    Not sure if that was a good thing?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by guido61 View Post

      Ygnwie sold a LOT of Paganini CDs back in the day.

      Not sure if that was a good thing?
      The irony is Paganini was the laat of the freely improvising soloists (that we know of) before the "tyranny of the composer" fully settled in, whereas to call what YJM did/does "improvisation", would be rather a huge stretch, imho.
      Keep the company of those who seek the truth, and run from those who have found it.

      -- Vaclav Havel

      The Universe is unimaginably vast. For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

      -- Carl Sagan


      Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between Bad and Good but between Bad and Worse.

      -- Joseph Brodsky

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

        The irony is Paganini was the laat of the freely improvising soloists (that we know of) before the "tyranny of the composer" fully settled in, whereas to call what YJM did/does "improvisation", would be rather a huge stretch, imho.
        That Ygnwie was influenced by Paganini is fine. Even if he didn’t do the same thing with it.

        That a bunch of young Ygnwie wannabes flocked to
        Paganini in search of something they didn’t understand or thinking it was somehow cool?

        it reminded me of all the drummers I knew who suddenly were reading Ayn Rand and not understanding a word of it.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by guido61 View Post



          it reminded me of all the drummers I knew who suddenly were reading Ayn Rand and not understanding a word of it.
          But that was because they're drummers.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

            Wtf??? You could have woken me up in the middle of any given night at around age 10 and asked me and I'd have said Eb before you finished the sentence! I find that difficult to believe in a "highly trained" performance pianist. Possibly because I went to a conservatory, which was a great deal more than "piano lessons", but a full curriculum - piano, choir, music history, music theory, solfege, etc... I admit to being rather unfamiliar with US/Canadian educational practices for child pedagogy, bur it seems to me that "highly trained" would imply all of the above, not just the ability to sight-read.

            And I gotta disagree with Chet. I'd say "teach em how to HEAR by teaching them how to play AND read AND comprehend". All at the same time. I haven't taught full time for quite a while, bur when I did, that was my approach... I alwaya wanted my students to not just be able to play stuff back to me but to undersrand WHY they were doing it. Maybe that's why I alwaya preferred older kids and young adults as students
            My piano player friend is a marine biologist. She's very intelligent, she probably took piano lessons as a child and responded very well to her teacher but music is not her passion - marine biology is. Her ability to play exactly what is written on the page is her strength and she does not have much experience playing with others.

            I bring her up as an example of what happens when the teaching starts with people playing from sheet music. I've had students who carried boxes of sheet music with them which they relied on to play pieces they had been playing for decades. They came to me to learn how to remember what to play.


            I do agree with Chet in the sense that I want my students to get a handle on their instrument before they become dependant on reading. One of the things I notice at the high school where I do workshops is that the students learn to play songs they like from watching youtube videos that show them where to put their fingers. They don't learn the instrument but they do learn to play certain specific pieces - maybe that's all they want. The challenge for me, a senior citizen, is to be able to reach teenagers with short attention spans in away that sparks their interest enough to want to dig a little deeper.


            Every worm, every insect, every animal is working
            for the ecological wellbeing of the planet.

            Only we humans, who claim to be the most intelligent
            species here, are not doing that. ~Sadhguru

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

              I got the first two years of a music degree, and qualified for a minor but didn't request it on my diploma.

              FWIW, in my current playing, I ride the border between the two. Both my horn bands and my theater gigs have some degreed players who have studied performance, and many of them (not all, but most) cannot improvise to save their lives. We also have "untrained" players who always think in terms of making music, rather than in terms of following the chart/score. Players with both are rare and incredibly valuable.

              Anecdote - about a year ago I was directing a theater gig, and I gave the instruction that we would do a playoff based on one of the "rock" numbers from the show, play the head, then two verses through with soloists each 12 bars, then the last 4 bars of the score as an "outro". The drums, bass, guitar and keyboard played it perfectly as described without even looking at the score; the concertmaster (lead violin), asked me if I would chart the playoff so that the string section could follow it. Different ways of approaching music - not good or bad, just different.
              Pit gigs require both. Good on you for being able to do those. I don't read scores, except for the "punctuation", so I would be utterly lost.
              !

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

                ...
                And I gotta disagree with Chet. I'd say "teach em how to HEAR by teaching them how to play AND read AND comprehend". All at the same time. I haven't taught full time for quite a while, bur when I did, that was my approach... I alwaya wanted my students to not just be able to play stuff back to me but to undersrand WHY they were doing it. Maybe that's why I alwaya preferred older kids and young adults as students
                I've never learned to read, but I have been able to learn a lot of music theory anyway. If I could start over, I'd take piano lessons and learn how to read. But I'm grateful that my lazy, undisciplined learning style has led me to a place where I'm comfortable playing. The thythm guitarist and main singer in my folk band can follow anything on guitar but can't on piano, which was her first instrument.
                !

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by arf-boy View Post

                  I've never learned to read, but I have been able to learn a lot of music theory anyway. If I could start over, I'd take piano lessons and learn how to read. But I'm grateful that my lazy, undisciplined learning style has led me to a place where I'm comfortable playing. The thythm guitarist and main singer in my folk band can follow anything on guitar but can't on piano, which was her first instrument.
                  It's interesting how some teachers just teach the instrument rather than teaching music.

                  I approach the guitar the same way I approach the piano - where I can see all of the notes and the chords just by looking at the board. I use the piano as a teaching tool when I'm teaching guitar (or any other instrument).
                  Every worm, every insect, every animal is working
                  for the ecological wellbeing of the planet.

                  Only we humans, who claim to be the most intelligent
                  species here, are not doing that. ~Sadhguru

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The Weeklings,
                    These guys are local to my area, Trenton , NJ , NYC and Philly.
                    saw them quite a few times over the years...most recently May 17th New Hope Winery.
                    they never disappoint and like some of the better Beatleseque Band they don’t Do costume changes .
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjWuR9ARnOg
                    I know this ‘live’ version of ‘It won’t be long’ has been enhanced, but what the hell..

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by onelife View Post

                      I do agree with Chet in the sense that I want my students to get a handle on their instrument before they become dependant on reading. One of the things I notice at the high school where I do workshops is that the students learn to play songs they like from watching youtube videos that show them where to put their fingers. They don't learn the instrument but they do learn to play certain specific pieces - maybe that's all they want. The challenge for me, a senior citizen, is to be able to reach teenagers with short attention spans in away that sparks their interest enough to want to dig a little deeper.
                      A largely neglected but valuable skill, by my observations at least, is playing by ear. Maybe that's partly what you're getting at by "learn the instrument". I was schooled in music theory. And played Bach and Beethoven, Brahms in college. But a few years later, I was having lunch with a gigging guitar player in a pizza joint that had a juke box. He played a few current popular songs on it (this was circa 1979 maybe) and pointed out the bass line. The bass, in large part (but not exclusively) is key to being able to play songs by ear. Of course, in 1979 there was still some pop music with harmonic movement - chord changes. This pizza joint juke box experience was eye opening - actually ear opening for me.

                      Add to the bass line, chord inversions and chord voicings, complex altered chords (often called jazz chords). These are the tools of making music beyond the simplistic pop music that passes my ears in public spaces. Current mass music seems to be harmonically semi-literate. More concerned with synthesizer "tones" and loops and such. Anyway, I've come to believe that the tools necessary for playing by ear should be taught. Whether formally, as music theory, or practically , as in "this is a I chord. This is a (minor) vi chord" and applying these to actual songs. And BTW, the Beatles were no slackers when it came to interesting and sometimes pretty sophisticated harmonies.

                      Erroll Garner (a legendary jazz pianist) never learned to read music. He was called an "ear player". But he composed "Misty". Of course he started playing around 3 (IIRC) and had pianists around him to learn from.
                      https://soundcloud.com/david-goethe/tracks

                      Dave's ,YouTube channel

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by davd_indigo View Post

                        A largely neglected but valuable skill, by my observations at least, is playing by ear. Maybe that's partly what you're getting at by "learn the instrument". I was schooled in music theory. And played Bach and Beethoven, Brahms in college. But a few years later, I was having lunch with a gigging guitar player in a pizza joint that had a juke box. He played a few current popular songs on it (this was circa 1979 maybe) and pointed out the bass line. The bass, in large part (but not exclusively) is key to being able to play songs by ear. Of course, in 1979 there was still some pop music with harmonic movement - chord changes. This pizza joint juke box experience was eye opening - actually ear opening for me.

                        Add to the bass line, chord inversions and chord voicings, complex altered chords (often called jazz chords). These are the tools of making music beyond the simplistic pop music that passes my ears in public spaces. Current mass music seems to be harmonically semi-literate. More concerned with synthesizer "tones" and loops and such. Anyway, I've come to believe that the tools necessary for playing by ear should be taught. Whether formally, as music theory, or practically , as in "this is a I chord. This is a (minor) vi chord" and applying these to actual songs. And BTW, the Beatles were no slackers when it came to interesting and sometimes pretty sophisticated harmonies.

                        Erroll Garner (a legendary jazz pianist) never learned to read music. He was called an "ear player". But he composed "Misty". Of course he started playing around 3 (IIRC) and had pianists around him to learn from.
                        That's precisely what I mean. Music is sound. "How do I get that sound from my instrument?" is where it starts.

                        I certainly don't have a problem with people learning theory but the stuff that we learn is not where the music starts but rather a method we use to describe the sound.
                        Every worm, every insect, every animal is working
                        for the ecological wellbeing of the planet.

                        Only we humans, who claim to be the most intelligent
                        species here, are not doing that. ~Sadhguru

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by onelife View Post

                          That's precisely what I mean. Music is sound. "How do I get that sound from my instrument?" is where it starts.

                          I certainly don't have a problem with people learning theory but the stuff that we learn is not where the music starts but rather a method we use to describe the sound.
                          We agree. I had a music theory teacher once make a BTW comment. He said that composers created their music, and theorists came along later and analyzed and labeled/codified things. Sometimes people study and learn traditional music theory or jazz music theory and they believe they are learning rules that are NOT to be broken. Problem.

                          But, I'd say that music theory has value. Let's take "My Funny Valentine"and the intro to "Michelle". "Valentine" has (in the key of C) chord changes in Cminor with descending half steps C, B, Bb and A . The intro to "Michelle" descends (in F minor) F, E, Eb , D, Db, and C. The other notes in the tonic chord are static. About five years ago I discovered that someone gave the name, "line cliche" to this movement. Someone somewhere observed and labeled it with a name. What use is this gibberish ? Communication. I could tell someone that the intro or verse of a song uses line cliche and they'd have a clue about playing the song.

                          This is probably of little interest to most. But if you play pickup gigs with another musician and don't get to rehearse, any common language is useful.

                          I basically think learning theory along with learning to play by ear can open up bigger worlds to a growing musician. Growing, learning, cultivating music.


                          https://soundcloud.com/david-goethe/tracks

                          Dave's ,YouTube channel

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by davd_indigo View Post

                            We agree. I had a music theory teacher once make a BTW comment. He said that composers created their music, and theorists came along later and analyzed and labeled/codified things. Sometimes people study and learn traditional music theory or jazz music theory and they believe they are learning rules that are NOT to be broken. Problem.

                            But, I'd say that music theory has value. Let's take "My Funny Valentine"and the intro to "Michelle". "Valentine" has (in the key of C) chord changes in Cminor with descending half steps C, B, Bb and A . The intro to "Michelle" descends (in F minor) F, E, Eb , D, Db, and C. The other notes in the tonic chord are static. About five years ago I discovered that someone gave the name, "line cliche" to this movement. Someone somewhere observed and labeled it with a name. What use is this gibberish ? Communication. I could tell someone that the intro or verse of a song uses line cliche and they'd have a clue about playing the song.

                            This is probably of little interest to most. But if you play pickup gigs with another musician and don't get to rehearse, any common language is useful.

                            I basically think learning theory along with learning to play by ear can open up bigger worlds to a growing musician. Growing, learning, cultivating music.

                            Again, we agree.

                            I thought that about Coltrane. He just played and the analysis came afterward.

                            I recall sitting in with a band and before the song someone would say something like "it's a one six two five in A" and we'd be off to the races. There is definitely value in knowing theory - even if only as a common language - as a way of describing music with words.

                            I'm usually a bit disappointed when I tell the drummer "it's on the and of three" and they tell me that they don't count.
                            Every worm, every insect, every animal is working
                            for the ecological wellbeing of the planet.

                            Only we humans, who claim to be the most intelligent
                            species here, are not doing that. ~Sadhguru

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post
                              I have always failed to see the difference between "classical" and pop music as the stark line that so many people seem to envision. From my perspective, the only substantive differences are the "born on" date and the fact that the only old music that we still losten to is the 10% that isn't garbage...
                              You might find this enjoyable/interesting. I certainly did.

                              Every worm, every insect, every animal is working
                              for the ecological wellbeing of the planet.

                              Only we humans, who claim to be the most intelligent
                              species here, are not doing that. ~Sadhguru

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X