Conference napalm::guitar

    I constandtly have a tape called "What I've been doing"
    
    It has all the tunes I like to play on it.  I generally listen to
    it on the way to rehearsals and stuff.  I generally only play the
    type of music thats turns me on, so I constantly listening to the
    stuff.  Thats my trick.  That, and practice, practice, practice!

    jc (FWIW)

	As has been said practice, practice, practice.
    
    I too have this problem even with songs. I will practice a song
    or instrumental till it is perfect and I may play it every day for
    a long period. Then I'll lay off for two or three weeks, make the
    mistake of thinking I know it and get it wrong, usually in public!
    
    Either you practice a limited repertoire and get it right and keep
    practicing it or...
    
    You are so proficient musically that you can just translate the
    melody and progressions in your mind directly to the fret board
    without thinking about it. The sort of proficiency I mean is I don't
    need to remember chords for straight C, F and G songs cause they
    just come naturally. Extend that skill to ALL music and you probably
    can get away without so much practice. However, I suppose you still
    need to practice physical skills such as keeping the fingers strong
    etc.
    
    Richard

    For the riffs you forget, are you thinking finger patterns or are
    you thinking notes (or intervals)?
    
    The riffs I tend to forget are riffs that I think finger patterns
    instead of notes.  When I think notes, I don't really have to make
    any conscious effort to memorize it.
    
    My big problem has always been remembering arrangements (like where
    the break comes).  I often find myself in a state where I don't know
    what verse this is and just sorta lay back and try to follow another
    band member who doesn't have this problem.
    
    This weekend I saw a gig that a former band member played.  He amazed
    me by saying that he could play ANY of the tunes we had done.  I don't
    doubt that.  It really amazed me though, cause I thought about it and
    I don't think I could get through ONE of the tunes we did.  If I
    don't play a tune on a regular basis, I forget it.
    
    	db

               
    I tend to remember some stuff with finger patterns and some stuff
    with notes, but as my music theory is not too good there are certain
    circumstances where I can't remember it note for note (as opposed
    to position by position).  I guess this is a downer, coz knowing the
    positions of notes is useful (eg for transposing into different keys) 
    For example, I can't remember fast stuff by notes coz there are so
    many, I just remember the pattern my fingers move in and it turns out 
    fine (most of the time!).
    

    Dave's note makes me think of something else that may apply...
    
    On some tunes, my hand just seems to know right where to go, I don't
    even have to think about it... I guess this is from practice; I've
    built a habit.  On other tunes (like originals), I may come up with
    something different each time, but usually in the same pattern.
    I guess this is the emotional side of it, playing what you feel.
    
    What bums me out is when some guitarists always seem to know the
    tune you are thinking/talking about.  Some people just seem to always
    know the licks of the tune you mention.  Not mentioning any names
    (jerry), but how do people do that ?  I have to sit with my CD player
    and practice that stuff over and over !
    
    Guess that makes two catagories; people who are born with it, and
    people who have to work at it !
    
    Just more ramblings/thoughts,
    
    Coop

    
    Re: the last few
    
    I'll admit to being guilty of it, too, but learning songs by positions
    is a real bad habit.  The idea is to know what *notes* you are playing.
    If all you're doing is putting your fingers in the same place all
    the time, it makes it difficult to translate ideas from one song
    to another.  That's why a lot of my practicing is playing familiar
    music in unfamiliar positions so as to be better aquainted with
    the fingerboard.
    
    But I now exactly what you mean, when I need a fast run, my fingers
    go into autopilot mode and I whip out a lick without really thinking
    about what notes I'm playing, it's just muscular reflex.

    Gee, the auto pilot works o.k. for me:
    
    In the band that I'm in, we have, oh about 100 or so songs.
    
    Some of these songs we have had in our lists for the life of the
    band, (about 6 years).
    
    At any point in time, someone will get the brite idea to throw one
    of the old ones in.  At first we all loook at each other, but we've
    rarely messed em up.  So, to me it's just like an auto pilot..
    

    I don't always know the notes under my fingers, but I usually
    "hear" their relationship to the tonic and my fingers do the
    rest.  I don't have to know the finger positions if I know
    the relationships between the notes and the tonic.
    
    On learning tunes by listening to them, I think that's mostly a
    matter of ear training.
    
    I'm NOT all that good at transcribing from a record.
    
    There are some tunes I can just play by listening to them.  Others
    I have to work at.  When I can just play it right of the bat,
    it usually means that I'm "familiar" with what's going on harmonically
    in the tune - chances are it's using some cliche chord changes or
    licks.
    
    Not coincidentally, the tunes that I can't easily figure out are 
    the ones I like the most.  I have no doubt that it's because 
    I can't appreciate things I already now.  The stuff I like is stuff
    that sounds "new" to me.
    
    Allen Holdsworth is always a bitch for me to cop.  He just uses so
    many strange (and often very wide) intervals and writes them in
    bizarre modes that often don't have much of a tonal center.
    
    His music is just the epitome of everything I find hard to cop from.
    
    	db

    A problem I have with my current band is that we'll go off and play
    new material for a while, then bring back a tune we haven't played
    for 6 months...  It's not the lix that mess me up, it's the arrangement
    and placement of bridges and stuff that mess me up...And I get 
    paranoid !
    
    ex:
    
    1-2-3-4, 2-2-3-4, 3-2-3-4...yipes !  Do I do this three times or
    four... whats everybody else gonna do...<take a look> Yike !  No
    body else seems to know either ! Now I lay me down to sleep...
    Invariably, someone of the four of us is gonna screw up.  Whatadrag.
    
    jc

	I have more trouble with the word to a particular 
song than the arrangement or melody on the guitar.  Maybe
because words are easy, so I don't concentrate as much.

I can still remember and play the Hummel trumpet concerto
that I learned in the 8th grade, and most of the guitar
stuff is the same way.  The thing that gives me fits
is when I change the way I play a tune.  At one time
I played 'Huckleberry Hornpipe' fairly straight.  When
I got the Crary tapes I began to play it his way, and
for a while I couldn't play it at all because the two
versions kept competing.

	I write out complete arrangements of my tunes.
It's the only way that I can keep track of them.
		[Mike_M]

    
    personally, I can't remember chords and stuff to a 100 songs.  I can
    remember how to play it if I can hear the song in my head...this is
    done through ear training.  I am an advocate of ear training for all
    players.  It really helps out a lot I think.  Of course, you get to the
    point where you can't listen to music without going (hmm, thats a G
    chord, to a c, to a d major, 2-5 to 1 typo stuff). 

    I am a BIG advocate of ear training simply because I can't read
    a lick of music.  And a lot of the tunes I listen to seem to have
    a lot of licks/runs/fills/patterns in common, it's almost predictable.
    The pop/rock/metal music I hear all seems to have a G-C-D element
    to it, you just have to remember where and when the fills fit. Writing
    down chord changes and bridges is helpful to me sometimes but I
    can't use that when I'm playing, it's just a memory excercise I
    guess.  When all else fails, just hit a power A chord and let it
    ring for a day and a half until you get your bearings ... 8^)
    
    
    				Jerry

    A related observation...
    
    I find that if I take an instrumental piece I know well and have
    practiced till I'm sick of it, its easier to play with my eyes closed!
    Time and time again I've noticed I'll fluff at least one phrase
    no matter how well I've practiced. But close my eyes and play and
    it comes out perfect! Anyone else noticed this?
    
    It may be related to another observation referred to earlier. Namely,
    if I find a fast complex passage, I make a point of learning it
    such that my fingers do it automatically. If I try and think about
    the musical aspects when playing the relevant passage, I'll fluff it!
    

    Richard
    

<<        A problem I have with my current band is that we'll go off and play
<<    new material for a while, then bring back a tune we haven't played
<<    for 6 months...  It's not the lix that mess me up, it's the arrangement
<<    and placement of bridges and stuff that mess me up...And I get 
<<    paranoid !

    If you asked me my opinion on *this* particular problem, I'd say
    it's the 'worrying' that kills you.
    
    I can't count the times that we'll be doing a song I'm supposed
    to be singing.  Sometimes, I wont have a clue what the first words
    are, or maybe even the first words in one of the other phrases...
    
    If I panic, I'll never get it.  If I don,t (and this aint no bull)
    a split second prior to having to sing the words, they come to me.
    
    Same way with a change or a break.  Just feel the flow, fall back
    on automatic recall.  For me, it works.  I have a very good memory
    when it comes to tunes, my problem is remembering where I put my car 
    keys !!
    
   

    
    I've found that there's nothing like the presence of an audience to
    freshen my memory.  My band can learn a song and play it a few times
    but we never *really* learn it until we play it for an audience.
    
    I dunno.  Maybe it's because there's no pressure in rehearsal; if we
    flub it we know that we can always pick it up again.  On a gig we don't
    have that luxury.
    
    I've also found that the other guys in the band help each other.  After
    playing together for a while you can feel it when someone's in trouble.
    Maybe the bass player is bopping along with the crowd and I can just
    tell that he has forgotten about the next bridge.  So, I get his
    attention and get him back on track.  Or someone starts a song in the
    wrong key and he have to find a graceful way to modulate.  The band
    always pulls it together somehow.  The audience, or at least 99% of it,
    never notices.
    
    Once, I was playing in a rough club and the drummer completely lost the
    song. He had no idea where he was or where the song went, which was too
    bad because he was singing the lead. He stopped, which meant that we
    had to stop.  I thought that recovery was out of the question.  
    
    The second that we stopped, the drummer grabbed his mike, stood up and
    yelled "Damn, I need a beer!" He picked up his sticks, gave one big
    "Yeah!" and we all jumped right back in.  It must have been intuition
    because we all came back together great and kicked for the rest of the
    song.
    
    Kevin
    
    

    I've never felt so bad about this sort of thing since I saw Paul
    Simon fluff Homeward Bound on a live TV show.
    
    He started the chorus.... "Homeward Bound, I wish I was...
    and then played a run, repeated the run, repeated it again, stopped
    and said to the producer (presuambly on the side lines), "Gee Richard,
    I was playing a run in thirds and it just didn't happen"!
    
    Of course the audience melted totally. In fact the whole show warmed
    up after that.
    
    Richard
    Basingstoke, UK

    
    
    	Someone earlier in this note mentioned remembering "shapes"...
    what are shapes as they relate to guitar playing??  They shapes
    of the scale??

    Yeah, I guess you'd call 'em that and come to think of it, that's
    what gets me out of a lot of jams - "hearing" a shape and being
    able to run up and down the neck until I find where it goes.  Usually
    if you have a ball-park idea of what key you're in or what chord
    you're playing your lead around it comes pretty quick !
    
    
    
    			
    				Scary

    I also remember chords by shapes and the look of it as well, because
    I'm one of the ugly 'musically illiterate' and aside from obvious
    open chords and bar chords, I haven't the foggiest idea of what the 
    name of the chord is, but remember what it's 'shape' (fingering) is.  
    That chord I put in for "Voodoo Chile" in another note--haven't a clue 
    to what that is, only it's a E something. 
    
    This is the way I've been operating for 6 years of playing guitar.
    Granted, I'm not a real hotshot, and would probably be better off
    knowing the names, but I know the sound, and where it can go, then
    what do I need a name for?  Sort of the fast food restaurant manager
    approach; "I know his/her function, and where he/she goes, why do I need
    a name?" =)                                         
    
    /c
    

    It's an E7#9.
    
    The other version you mentioned is an E6#9.
    
    See how much easier it is to type the name than to have to draw
    a fret diagram.
    
    Danny W.

    True, but how many people *really* are going to know that off the
    top of their head?  Of course, now, all the teachers in here are
    going to converge, but what about those others?  I think the easier,
    quicker way to convey a chord to someone else, or yourself, is to
    remember the shape/fingering.  Learn the name afterwards.  
    
    You may attack now.
    
    /c

    
  
      	I use both ways to communicate chords to others.  Both work
    well in particular types of situations.  
        
        I agree with -.1.   A lot of players I come in contact with don't think
    in terms of naming the chords....-.2 If you write a chord name down
    for another player you might cause a double-translation to happen...
    especially if you picked it up by ear in the first place.  The 
    real problem with it is I think some of us have favorite voicings 
    for particular chords.  My favorite E7+9 lives at the 7th fret
    root on the a-string, not in first position...without the picture
    I would have thought of that voicing from jazz charts I've been 
    brain-washed by, and that might have led me to searching Voodoo Chile 
    over and over in my head this afternoon trying to find the damn E7#9 
    at the 7th fret...
    
    	I think it's useful to strive to be fluent in tonal harmonic 
    theory if you can, so you can at least communicate with players
    of other instruments in addition to the guitar, but I find other 
    guitarists are not always at the same level and vice-versa, 
    so "shapes" as you put it, nail it down.
    
    Jim
    

    re: -.1
    
    your favorite voicing at the 7th fret is most likely the same voicing
    that was diagrammed-- just shifted down a string: E G# D G.
    
    My point is that too many guitarists are proud of their illiteracy.
    If you know the proper names, you can still use chord diagrams when
    fingering is important. But if all you can read are the pictures,
    you are locked out of a whole world of written and transcribed music.
    
    You could easily be more explicit when using names--I could have
    said E7#9 in first position, and still be much more concise than
    a diagram. Considering the amount of screen space it took to draw this
    simple chord, imagine how wasteful it is to have to write out something
    with more complex changes, say "Round 'Midnite" completely in diagram
    form. Notice, too, that when you do this, you have removed all
    creativity on the part of the reader.
    
    I had no intention of doing flames on this subject. But any player
    of any instrument who brags about being illiterate is a fool. IMHO.
    of course.
    
    Danny W.

RE: -1

One of the illiterate players speaks up ... Danny did I spell that right ?

<    re: -.1
<    
<    your favorite voicing at the 7th fret is most likely the same voicing
<    that was diagrammed-- just shifted down a string: E G# D G.
    
<    My point is that too many guitarists are proud of their illiteracy.
<    If you know the proper names, you can still use chord diagrams when
<    fingering is important. But if all you can read are the pictures,
<    you are locked out of a whole world of written and transcribed music.

I don't believe it's a matter of being proud, it's just being honest by 
saying, "OK, I can't read music".  Do you think when blues guitarists first 
got together and jammed they sat down and kicked around theory for 3 hours 
before they started playing ?  And as far as being "locked out of a 
world of written and transcribed music" goes, I have a much different way 
of looking at that.  I've jammed with some brilliant players that read and 
are real heavy into theory and who I had a lot of respect for. But when it 
came to "jamming" they were lost.  Oh yeah, if they had the sheet music or 
tab or something to look at fine, but as far as attempting to play by ear 
or by feel forget it.  And *personally* I'll take that over Mel Bay any 
day.  IMHO if you don't "feel", illiterate or not, you're no more than a 
machine doing a data dump - "OK here's what I can do ... <return>".
    
    
<    You could easily be more explicit when using names--I could have
<    said E7#9 in first position, and still be much more concise than
<    a diagram. Considering the amount of screen space it took to draw this
<    simple chord, imagine how wasteful it is to have to write out something
<    with more complex changes, say "Round 'Midnite" completely in diagram
<    form. Notice, too, that when you do this, you have removed all
<    creativity on the part of the reader.

As far as the creaivity goes, I have one of those tiny chord diagram books, 
you tell me the chord and I'll look it up, creative enough ?  Some of us 
just want to play and really aren't too interested in dazzling someone with 
reams of knowledge.But I'd hate to waste your time even asking the question.    
And if it wastes so much of your screen space and time, why bother ?  
   
<    I had no intention of doing flames on this subject. But any player     
<    of any instrument who brags about being illiterate is a fool. IMHO.
<    of course.
    
<    Danny W.

Opinion noted ... but anyone that has the nerve to call someone else a fool 
based purely on a chord diagram has a lot of growing up to do !  IMHO, of 
course ...


				Scary
                                                                   

    re: .24
    
    I've also come across people who can't read that can't jam either.
    
    I don't think the ability to jam is correlated negatively with
    the ability to read or an understanding of theory.  That has
    always struck me as an "excuse".
    
    The ability to read and an understanding of theory only facilitates
    becoming a better player.  It doesn't guarantee it, but it doesn't
    hinder it.  It's worth learning to read and it doesn't take much
    either.
    
    But folks are welcome to continue thinking the other way.
    
    	db

    re .25
    
    >>It's worth learning to read and it doesn't take much either.
    
    Dave,
    
    What do you mean by the last part of this sentence? Much effort?
    or much knowledge to help your playing.
    
    I agree that any amount of musical knowledge can only help, but 
    I don't think it's an easy thing for everyone to learn (at least 
    not for me). It really depends on how far you want to go with it.
    
    -Tom

    I think it's worth noting that there is a difference between 
    reading (as in sight-reading) and knowing theory. It is quite
    possible to learn a lot of theory without ever knowing how
    to read; it's all numbers. I can play an E6#9 chord all over
    the neck but it would take me 5 minutes to read the same chord
    from sheet music. Sure, you can jam for hours without knowing 
    any theory, but if you know a little theory you can jam and make
    things sound INTERESTING instead of playing the same old pentatonic
    licks over and over again. Just learning to make new chords will
    expose you to a lot of new sounds you never imagined existed.
    
    -Dave

    re: .27 (loosely)
    
    Well, I don't know an *awful* lot of theory, and my reading isn't
    spectacular, but when I'm jamming (jahmin), I hardly ever use
    pentatonics.  They tend to lead to boring blues jams, and we all
    know how painful those can get sometimes.  From woodshedding on
    my own, and watching others, I've found plenty of other lead/scaley
    type things to use, which are warm, wacky and fun.  
    
    As for being proud of my ineptitude, as it was stated and rebuked
    a few notes back, it's not really pride, but just a fact.  I can't
    read or write music, but in the grand scheme o' things, I've still
    been able to have as much fun, perhaps even more so, without knowing
    the supertonic of the root (7th scale degree? correct me if I'm
    wrong.  could be the 6th) I happen to be playing in.  It's that kind 
    of talk that leaves me dry.  I'd just as soon be illiterate and
    get on with it and have a good (not technically accurate)time than have 
    to swap that jargon with a bunch of (uh oh, here it comes) stodgy 
    Berklee-ites playing calculated jazz.                        
    
    /c
    

    re: .26
    
    I meant effort.
    
    	db

    	O.K. I'm about to enter the frey....
    		I can't read, and have a limited knowledge of music.
    It never stopped me from playing, but there is a point when I find
    that it *does* stop me from remembering what to do next.

        As I have recently started getting back into playing with folks
    in the hopes of performing, I am finding that knowing the name
    of a chord or note also helps me to *remember* it in the context of
    the song. I typically remember fingerings and "Shapes", and in
    fact that is how I got my rudimentary knowledge of Barre chords
    and licks. But I think I am fast approaching the point where I need
    to understand why things work together and why they don't...and
    that means I am going to have to learn how to read and get a better
    understanding of theory. It's not that I want to become a "Jazz
    Theoritician" or whatever. I just want to be able to communicate
    my ideas and open up the door to new avenues besides "blues scales"
    and "Chuck Berry type" licks. I am limited by what I know and find
    myself in a rut. It's a much better rut than it was maybe ten years
    ago, but it's still limiting me.
    
        I use the analogy of a child who can talk in full sentances and
    can get ideas across with many smaller words, and the adult who can
    say the same thing with a single precise word. Communication.
    
        	Just last week I discovered this to be true in one of the other
    guys I play with. We're both about the same level, and the frustration
    starts when we can't communicate our ideas in the same common
    language... we eventually do figure it out but it's usually by showing
    each other what the chord or lick is on guitar and then the problem
    is one of understanding what it is and remembering it next time
    around.
    					Tom T.
    				Musician_in_training

    
    
    
    	Your level of effort that you choose to put in to being a 
    	good reader, good theorist, or technical monster is your 
    	own according to your goals and who you might want to 
    	get on with musically, I would think.  
    
    		I think there is a certain pride to being able to 
    	play by ear and not be DEPENDANT on...for lack of a better
    	descriptor....rote knowledge...and just explore what you 
    	hear yourself doing.
    		I think there is a certain pride to being able to 
    	read a chart on sight so you can, say, play an ensmeble
    	without spending all day sunday translating perfectly good
    	charts into your own seek_and_strum______
    		I think there is a certain pride to being able to 
    	command theory and translate that to the fretboard instantly
    	or at least pretty quick.  I think we all respect that ability
    	especially if someone you see doing that does it with a command
    	of the technical side as well....
    

    		For me, I spend more time at 1 and 3 then at 2.  In
    	my very limited gig experience I see people having a decent
    	time as my metric....it wouldn't matter to them if I practiced
    	at home while standing on hot coals with rubber bands between
    	the fingers of my fret hand as long as the product is entertaining.
    	why are we in this anyway??
		Even Berklie-ites are capable of enjoying themselves...
    	I saw one smile once in the middle of his solo. 8^)
    
    
        	    
    Jim
    

	theory:   A set of rules or principles designed for the study
or practice of an art or discipline.

	There are no idiom designation's to learning theory,it applies to
all music. There are specific scales,modes,tensions,chords etc which may be 
found more often in certain idioms or "sound better". Whether you want to 
learn more to enhance what you have already learned by ear to improve your 
playing or writing,it's your choice. Ya know? 
		Mom,Apple Pie and Chevorlet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	
	Confessing up to a lack of knowledge and having a desire to learn
is an indication that you are progressing as musician. I've been there...
	Someone standing around discussing music theory is no different
than any other person discussing there work or job.
	Learning to read enables you to use other tools to improve your
music. Sight reading,or studio/session work are a whole different level
of proficency. Keep in mind joke's about Berklee or musical idioms are
really in poor taste. :^(   

						a part time musician
						with a full time musicians
						attitude
				
							Rick

    
    Re: .31
    
        
>    		I think there is a certain pride to being able to 
>    	play by ear and not be DEPENDANT on...for lack of a better
>    	descriptor....rote knowledge...and just explore what you 
>    	hear yourself doing.

    
    I can see what you are saying, but I would like to say that this
    approach can quickly lead to stagnation.  I have found this in my
    own playing and it isn't due to lack of jamming with others, etc.
    I often hit "walls" in my playing where it becomes obvious that
    I need to hit the books again to learn more to play what I hear
    in my head as "right" for the music.
        
    It's also difficult to coordinate a band when you have singers,
    sax players, keyboards, etc. who can't relate to "shapes".  You
    think guitar players have it bad, most woodwinds are transposing
    instruments.  When you play a C on a guitar, piano, etc. a tenor
    sax player hits a Bb.  An alto player hits an Eb!!!  Wait till the
    singer asks you to do the song in C# instead of E.  OK, now try
    to explain an arrangement to your band....that's what written music
    is all about.
    
    I'm hardly dependent on "rote knowledge".  Rather, having knowledge
    of theory helps me put together bass lines with a firm grounding
    of what to play to create a certain musical effect.  And being able
    to read (even slowly) means I can learn songs from lead sheets rather
    than spend hours in front of my stereo with headphones on.  When
    I was doing top 40 and we had to add 2 or 3 new songs a week, I
    used to go out and buy the sheet music along with the 45.  I could
    pick up a tune in about 10 minutes.  Without the sheet unless it
    was a pretty simple rock tune, it could take me a couple of hours
    to guess at the chords and then go to rehearsal and argue for another
    hour with the keyboard player about whether it's an F6 or a Dmin7.
    
    And when you look at transcriptions like those in the various magazines
    you can *analyze* the piece and figure out why certain passages
    work the way they do and incorporate those ideas into other contexts.
    
    Lastly, don't think that because you play (insert your style here)
    that theory is only for jazzers.  I have played plenty of rock and
    country stuff that is complex enough that you can learn it two ways,
    totally by rote and wonder why you put your fingers where you do,
    or understand what's happening harmonically  which means there's
    less to remember (which was the original base of this note, eh?).
    
    Case in point, a tune by the Stray Cats I just learned.  They're
    just three chord rockabilly bangers right?  Check out this chord
    progression:
    
    I-IV-I-I/majVII bass-I/VI bass-I/V bass-V-V/IV bass-V/III bass-IIm-I-I7th-
    IV-IVm-I-VI-II-V-I-IV-I
    
    That's one verse, gang.  Plus the second verse uses a slightly
    different progression, and there's a bridge.
    
    Now analyze this:
    
    Start at the I, go the IV, then to I, descend the bass chromatically,
    when the bass hits the V, go to the V and continue to descend until
    you hit the II, then back to I, to IV, go from major to minor, back
    to I, drop to the VI then do "circle of fifths" until you get back
    to I (i.e. VI-II-V-I), tag with the usual I to IV ending.  
    
    This has a logical flow to it that just listing out the chords doesn't.
    Plus, I can play it any key since I know what the scale tones are for that
    key.  So if someone wants to take the song from A to F#, I'm all set. 

    BTW, I learned that song by ear, but it was theory that let me connect
    what I was hearing to notes on the fretboard.     
    

    Formal Apology Time:
    
    Forgive my abrasive remarks aimed at those educated by Berklee and
    play jazz.  I didn't mean to be overly nasty.  I'm sorry.  k?  
    No hahd feelin's?
    
    It jus' be mah iliterit(ha) side comin' out.   
    
    =)
    
    /c
    

>	There are no idiom designation's to learning theory,it applies to
>all music. There are specific scales,modes,tensions,chords etc which may be 
>found more often in certain idioms or "sound better". Whether you want to 
>learn more to enhance what you have already learned by ear to improve your 
>playing or writing,it's your choice. Ya know? 
>		Mom,Apple Pie and Chevorlet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>	
>	Confessing up to a lack of knowledge and having a desire to learn
>is an indication that you are progressing as musician. I've been there...
>	Someone standing around discussing music theory is no different
>than any other person discussing there work or job.
>	Learning to read enables you to use other tools to improve your
>music. Sight reading,or studio/session work are a whole different level
>of proficency. 
    
	Very well put. 
    
>   Keep in mind joke's about Berklee or musical idioms are
>really in poor taste. :^(   

    	What I intended as a lightener to the apparent flames starting
    TOWARDS berklee-ites backfired.  My intent was not to alienate 
    any one party.  Apologies to any offendees.
    
    
    
Jim
    

    I find myself more stifled by the theory I don't know rather than
    the theory I do know.  It's been my experience that the bit
    about being stifled by the theory you know is a myth.
    
    Learning theory is opening doors, not closing them.  If I already
    know how to play it, I don't need to learn the theory.  I learn
    theory and analyze pieces to be ABLE to play that which I can't
    already.
    
    You make progress MUCH faster that way.  You take a piece that
    you have trouble jamming with, analyze it, and suddenly you
    can jam to it. 
    
    A non-analytical type might eventually be able to play along with
    it, but I'll bet you'll find yourself clinging to things that
    you've found that "work" rather than playing pretty freely (sound 
    familiar?)

    
    
    I think it's pretty limiting not knowing music theory. I,too am
    muscially illiterate with respect to theory. I can *play* , but
    I'm sure to be a better player , armed with a little musical 
    ammunition. 
    
    This leads to an interesting question, where does a 'seat of the
    pants' bassist go to learn theory? Does it require a teacher or
    are there recommended books?
    

    
    well, i went to berklee just so i could become a software engineer
    :-)
    
    i am veery lazy about theory - most of what i do comes from the
    ear and the accompanying well traveled circuits in the ol brain.
    However, basic theory is easy math - you really don't have to know
    a whole lot for it to become real usefull. For all u illiterates,
    i'd recommend a nights reading on just scales and harmonies. You
    will most likely see what you've been doing in a different, even
    rational fashion. That's not threatening - and it will become a
    useful tool, just like guitar tuners.  
    
    Hell, i treat theory like programming languages - remember as little
    as possible online, and if i need more, where's that book! It's
    just a helper...
    
    
    bs

set mode=soapbox

	It's very hard to read true feelings in typed conversations
    some of us are overly sensitive to broad generalizations.

	I typically do not defend institution's,however I believe that
institutions don't make people,people make people. The institution has
a reputation and people effect that reputation whether it's negative or
positive.  So.....
	On the behalf of the once "Berklee" students and graduates who
work and live under mother DEC's umbrella and might have found anything
    insulting in previous replies I accept your apologies,thank you. No
hard feelings. :^) play on......

set mode=no soapbox
                                                            

RE:< Note 1180.37 by FSTTOO::GALLO "Ultrix Instructor" >

<<    This leads to an interesting question, where does a 'seat of the
<<    pants' bassist go to learn theory? Does it require a teacher or
<<    are there recommended books?

	'The Evolving Bassist' by Rufus Reed - tremendous, both for
upright and electric.  Takes you through the changes with scale and arpeggio
excercises.  Really helps to understand the fret/fingerboard for the
instrument.  When you're reading changes it's invaluable.

	Soapbox -

	Technique allows you freedom from mechanics, in order to let
your mind be truely creative for improvisation.  Scale patterns, arpeggios,
and 'hot licks' should be developed to the point that they are absolutely
automatic.  That is the point that creativity begins to enter your playing.
Theory is a very important portion of that technique, as it allows me
to hear the changes and know what scale or lick is appropriate - and allows
me to know when to play 'outside' the changes.

	RE: -.? - I agree.  Theory OPENS doors.

	End Soapbox.


    

    I thought my reply would stir things up a bit.
    
    Please note that I never even mentioned theory or reading, just
    knowing the names of the chords. Despite what a few of you seem
    to think, most guitarists who play more than rock do in fact know
    these names. Also note that I did not rail against ignorance, but
    rather the pride in that ignorance.. 
    
    One of the worst arguments commonly given is: I'd rather be a good
    improvisor, creator, ear player. This is a false dichotomy--learning
    the names of chords, theory or (heaven forfend) actually even learning
    to read music has never hurt a musician. I think players like Kenny
    Burrell, Barney Kessel, Herb Ellis, Emily Remler, Chet Atkins, Les
    Paul,Jimmy Raney and many other top players who read and know theory
    dispell that. If you'd like to point out the players who can't read
    (and there are many), you can't prove that they wouldn't be better
    if they could read. And many of these players do know the names
    of chords.
    
    When I first started playing, I worked regularly while much better
    players were learning licks off of records. The only reason for
    this was the fact that I could read lead sheets. This ability paid
    for my college education and our first house, so it seems to have
    been worthwhile.
    
    One of the practical reasons for learning chord names and the theory
    of how chords interact is that it makes it much easier to learn
    and remember tunes. Many musicians who know hundreds or thousands
    of tunes don't really memorize each one, they just remember the types
    of progressions for the chorus and bridge, and any modulations.
    
    For those of you who are convinced that you are better
    off in ignorance, let me ask if you would feel the same if you couldn't
    read English (or whatever your native tongue is). If you can't answer
    yes, then you can't justify your inability to read written  the language
    of music. Frankly, I don't give a hoot if you never learn to read
    or not--you are only depriving yourselves.
    
    Danny W.

    Well, after browsing through this note I'm convinced now that there
    are as many ways to be an acomplished musician as there are musicians.
    Different strokes and all that.  It's all in what you want out of
    it and what YOU consider is an acomplishment for YOU.  It's all
    in what floor you want the elevator to drop you off at.  Some get
    to the penthouse using the stairs, some climb the outside of the
    building, some use a helicopter.  If it's for enjoyment, and that's
    why I play anyway, then what does it really matter ...
                                                          
    
    
    				Scary