Okay, I am officially hacked off. I was listening to Arcade Fires "Wake Up" and I realized that I was mad. I then realized that I was mad becuase I wasn't actually playing music, and have NEVER owned a instrument, and as such, have never played a song, even a cruddy one. Now I'm mad again. This stinks. I REALLY need an instrument
Sooo...What would a good guitar set up (Electric Bass, or just Electric) cost, including Amps? I really am not looking for anything top-notch, just something I can use as an emotional funnel. Shoot, I would be happy with a red cheapo plastic guitar, like Jack Whites first one. Any recommendations?
The actual band itself has done some rather facepalm-inducing things like, their constant endorsement of the RIAA's hyper-aggressive tactics towards consumers.
I would suggest you head to Target or Wal-Mart to look for a First Act or Starcaster guitar. Not much cost, the amps available are cheap and they come with simple music books.
Btw, Jack White's guitar is a fairly rare 60's era Eastwood Guitar.
Melissia wrote:The actual band itself has done some rather facepalm-inducing things like, their constant endorsement of the RIAA's hyper-aggressive tactics towards consumers.
Eh, like it or don't like it, none of my business. I don't like rap, and I occasionally joke about it, but I don't bash rappers . There's some pretty damn inspirational rap songs out there, ones which bring out a good deal of emotions (which is what I like out of music... Rhapsody of Fire is great at bringing out emotions for example).
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Sooo...What would a good guitar set up (Electric Bass, or just Electric) cost, including Amps? I really am not looking for anything top-notch, just something I can use as an emotional funnel. Shoot, I would be happy with a red cheapo plastic guitar, like Jack Whites first one. Any recommendations?
Bravey
There was a thread a month or two back about this, just do a search in the OT forums.
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
edit: technically, you can insert any album there.
QFT. i liked St. Anger myself!
i got a Bass, carry bag, tiny amp(15W?) and music stand for $199 before taxes. this was about 10 years ago.
i'd suggest checking Mom and Pop music stores in your area. just look for starter kits that have everything together.
Then go forth and rock.
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
edit: technically, you can insert any album there.
You have now became one of my favorite Dakka Members. I understand people not liking it, but when their just bashing on it I get ticked. I personally love Saint Anger
I think Saint Anger gets a lot of flak because it was supposed to be Metallica's triumphant return to its glorious roots and well... it fell a bit short of Ride the Lightning or even The Black Album.
And I can understand that good and well. It was definitely a different direction on that album but over all i do enjoy it quite alot. (Except for my missing Guitar Solo's )
Edit: Its the "Metallica sucks, Just look at Saint Anger Hurr..." People that get to me
Well, this is why I'm glad that I play an instrument. If guitar and learning takes too much time, try guitar hero?
A little joke in the music world is that 90% of rock music is based off of 3 chords in various keys. The chords are a basic blues progression. Once you understand how to use a guitar adequately, learn the blues progression, and you're (mostly) golden. Then, onto soloing (shredding) you must wander. Note that I don't play the guitar, this advice might be completely wrong.
micahaphone wrote:Well, this is why I'm glad that I play an instrument. If guitar and learning takes too much time, try guitar hero?
A little joke in the music world is that 90% of rock music is based off of 3 chords in various keys. The chords are a basic blues progression. Once you understand how to use a guitar adequately, learn the blues progression, and you're (mostly) golden. Then, onto soloing (shredding) you must wander. Note that I don't play the guitar, this advice might be completely wrong.
I couldn't beat my way out of a paper bag with a drumstick, but my Son plays Guitar in a local Tulsa punk band called Soap Charge. he started on bass.
and my youngest daughter took 3 + years of piano. now she's into her first year of drums. ah, the peace and quiet.
I've always wanted to play an instrument (specifically saxaphone) but never had the time or budget (when I have the money to buy a decent starter sax, I notice a new Codex and army that looks attractive, or maybe a new game like Warmahordes or...
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Okay, I am officially hacked off. I was listening to Arcade Fires "Wake Up" and I realized that I was mad. I then realized that I was mad becuase I wasn't actually playing music, and have NEVER owned a instrument, and as such, have never played a song, even a cruddy one. Now I'm mad again. This stinks. I REALLY need an instrument
Odd song. Something about it reminded me of Bowie's Soul Love, though I can't for the live of me figure out why. At any rate, they seem like they fall in with the "Tragically Hip" crowd, but who am I to judge? At any rate, learning to play an instrument is not an easy task. I've played the tumpet, trombone, and a bit of the guitar. It requires constant practice, and it's slow going. I played the trumpet for years in school, and then played trombone for a few years even beyond school, practicing near daily, and even then, I could only manage 1st chair on a few of the easier songs. It's hard, and takes genuine talent. Also, you'll need to learn about music theory and will want to learn to read sheet music. Tablature will only get you so far, and don't let anyone tell you different.
Sooo...What would a good guitar set up (Electric Bass, or just Electric) cost, including Amps? I really am not looking for anything top-notch, just something I can use as an emotional funnel. Shoot, I would be happy with a red cheapo plastic guitar, like Jack Whites first one. Any recommendations?
Are you looking for a GOOD guitar or a CHEAP one? I believe Fender instruments are held with some regard, though I've heard disdain for their Squire line. Not sure if general opinion on them have changed in the last 5-10 years though. Do some research on them. Check what they're going for on ebay, and use that as a baseline. Maybe go pawn shopping, but don't buy anything immediately from there without fact checking first. I'd buy used instead of new.
If you're looking for a cheap one, then get a $80 balsa wood guitar with the starter amp from Best Buy. At least then if you don't like it, you're not out a ton of money.
Honestly newer, cheaper instruments will suck for the most part. Be willing to pay an extra $50 or so per piece and the instrument will be tons better. I love that no one has even used the words "tone" yet in a thread about which guitar to get >.< I still strongly advise going with my previous advice and letting someone with an unbiased ear pick it for you. This is kind of like asking how to paint without having a real person there.
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
edit: technically, you can insert any album there.
Saint Anger was such an underwhelming and mediocre effort that it caused most of their listenership that I personally knew, a large amount of the third shift Jack in the Box crowd, to swear off Metallica forever. They promptly sold their bitchin' Cameros, cut their hair, and started wearing non-denim shirts with collars. As far as the "Lifetime Betrayed Anticipation Award" goes, St. Anger was second really only to the overwhelming tie for first place: Chinese Democracy and Black Ice. GnR took 9 years and AC/DC took about 8 to absolutely perfect beyond all criticism their greatest albums... which are indistinguishable from the rest. And I was almost excited about the AC/DC one. It reminded me of Zoolander. Ben Stiller's character had different poses, but they were all the same.
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
Bashing St. Anger doesn't make you cool, it makes you right. But the same could be said of any Metallica album since Cliff died. I get musically PO'd every time some self-proclaimed metalhead whines about how And Justice For All was robbed of a grammy, as if being by Metallica entitled it. Seriously, have any of them actually listened to it? I think it's probably the worst mastered album I've ever heard. They mixed down (out) the bass parts to prank their new member - what band does that? Tank your own album to prank the new guy?
As for instruments, the biggest difference between a good instrument and a poor one these days is the quality of the electronics. Sure, at the real upper-end of things, body shape and what wood is used make a difference (the body shape of a guitar impacts what frequencies resonate longer and which do not), but at the mid-to-low range of instruments, the difference is in the electronics; the difference between an American-made strat and a Chinese-made Squire is primarily about the pickups. The reason for this is that the factories that do the woodworking parts are automated with a high degree of precision these days. The days when a cheap guitar meant an unplayably high action or fret buzz are pretty much gone.
Therefore, if you're electronically inclined, I'd recommend picking up cheaper instruments to learn on, and if you want to take it further, make an investment in better pickups. A good pair of pickups will run you an extra $100-200, but remember, that's just the money you're not paying upfront for an instrument that you may not end up progressing far with.
Monster Rain wrote:I think Saint Anger gets a lot of flak because it was supposed to be Metallica's triumphant return to its glorious roots and well... it fell a bit short of Ride the Lightning or even The Black Album.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Okay, I am officially hacked off. I was listening to Arcade Fires "Wake Up" and I realized that I was mad. I then realized that I was mad becuase I wasn't actually playing music, and have NEVER owned a instrument, and as such, have never played a song, even a cruddy one. Now I'm mad again. This stinks. I REALLY need an instrument
Sooo...What would a good guitar set up (Electric Bass, or just Electric) cost, including Amps? I really am not looking for anything top-notch, just something I can use as an emotional funnel. Shoot, I would be happy with a red cheapo plastic guitar, like Jack Whites first one. Any recommendations?
Bravey
I started off on an acoustic, which helped. You don't need an amp or anything, either. Better to buy one to learn, than fork out on an electric straight away.
Then again, I haven't played in years, now. I can only play "Smoke on the Water."
Redbeard wrote:As for instruments, the biggest difference between a good instrument and a poor one these days is the quality of the electronics.
Strong disagree. The difference between a good and a poor is the quality and aging of the wood. Most of the good, aged wood got used up years ago. The aging of the wood affects resonance and depth of sound very significantly. The quality of the electronics I'd say is second, tied with hardware (crappy tuners and the like, which are easily enough replaced though are a hassle).
I like Saint Anger. It has a good amount of emotion behind it, and I can get into that music pretty easily. It's different than other Metallica stuff, but that doesn't make it bad.
Redbeard wrote:As for instruments, the biggest difference between a good instrument and a poor one these days is the quality of the electronics.
Strong disagree. The difference between a good and a poor is the quality and aging of the wood. Most of the good, aged wood got used up years ago. The aging of the wood affects resonance and depth of sound very significantly. The quality of the electronics I'd say is second, tied with hardware (crappy tuners and the like, which are easily enough replaced though are a hassle).
I disagree, until you talk about comparisons between the real upper-end instruments. Yes, wood makes a difference. But you're not going to notice that in the difference between a $150 Squire and a $750 strat. You'll notice the difference in their electronics though. I'd be willing to bet that more people would notice a difference if I switched the tubes in an amp from a 5751 series to a 12AX7 than if I swapped a maple guitar for a mahogany one.
Melissia wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
Bashing St. Anger doesn't make you cool, it makes you right.
If by "right" you mean "stuck up music snob who rabidly dislikes any differently styled music", yes, it does.
You have no idea what styles of music I like. It's also entirely possible to be critical of a work within the context it's intended for. St. Anger isn't good. It's not "bad for Metallica", it's just bad. Musically speaking. Lyrically, I don't know. It might be emotionally deep, but if I cared about the words, I'd read poetry instead.
I guess since this is the Musically Po'ed thread, I'll throw that out too. Bad music isn't suddenly good because the writer was deep or angsty. Being wordy is no excuse for not knowing things like keys, time signatures, being in tune, or staying in time.
No, it's not bad. Why? Simple, if it was bad, I wouldn't enjoy it.
Yes, before anyone says it again, duh, no gak, it's subjective, it's just my opinion, yada yada yada But that's the only way that I am willing to gauge good music.
Sometimes music which is technically perfect isn't really all that interesting. I actually find some songs in Saint Anger to have more draw for me than some of Metallica's older songs which are proclaimed to be "OMGWTFBBQ GREAT" by diehard Metallica fans. "Enter Sandman" is often declared as a great song, but I don't enjoy it so I couldn't even call it mediocre.
Hmmm, I think I have settled upon practicing with the old Acoustic guitar my family owns until I am relativity sure I want to invest a good chunk of money, then getting either a Fender Squier Stratocaster, or a Fender Starcaster starter set from Amazon for around $170 (includes small amp, strap, guitar, picks. It has a pretty good rating). Or I might get a Fender Squier Bass, a friend of mine who is in a good up and coming local band used that one for a while.
Melissia wrote:If this offends you, why are you on the internet?
To pick fights with you, of course
No one even mentioned St. Anger until you preemptively defended it. It's like you wanted to provoke conflict over an album that you know isn't very good (in spite of how much you personally enjoy it).
I merely gave that as an example. I could also mention post-Tarja Nighwish, too-- a few rather vocal fans really, REALLY hate the new singer, Anette... though the fanbase is a bit less split over this than over Saint Anger.
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
edit: technically, you can insert any album there.
Saint Anger was such an underwhelming and mediocre effort that it caused most of their listenership that I personally knew, a large amount of the third shift Jack in the Box crowd, to swear off Metallica forever. They promptly sold their bitchin' Cameros, cut their hair, and started wearing non-denim shirts with collars. As far as the "Lifetime Betrayed Anticipation Award" goes, St. Anger was second really only to the overwhelming tie for first place: Chinese Democracy and Black Ice. GnR took 9 years and AC/DC took about 8 to absolutely perfect beyond all criticism their greatest albums... which are indistinguishable from the rest. And I was almost excited about the AC/DC one. It reminded me of Zoolander. Ben Stiller's character had different poses, but they were all the same.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I think Black Ice was never intended to be anything more than another AC/DC album. Hell Angus even jokes that all of their stuff sounds the same.
GNR is a band cursed by their own success, how the hell can they top Apetite? Chinese Democracy is ok for an album by someone else (who? I haven't a clue)
Redbeard wrote:As for instruments, the biggest difference between a good instrument and a poor one these days is the quality of the electronics.
Strong disagree. The difference between a good and a poor is the quality and aging of the wood. Most of the good, aged wood got used up years ago. The aging of the wood affects resonance and depth of sound very significantly. The quality of the electronics I'd say is second, tied with hardware (crappy tuners and the like, which are easily enough replaced though are a hassle).
I disagree, until you talk about comparisons between the real upper-end instruments. Yes, wood makes a difference. But you're not going to notice that in the difference between a $150 Squire and a $750 strat. You'll notice the difference in their electronics though. I'd be willing to bet that more people would notice a difference if I switched the tubes in an amp from a 5751 series to a 12AX7 than if I swapped a maple guitar for a mahogany one.
The thing I'm driving at is that you would know the difference in play. Yes, musicians tend to have hyper-sensitive ears, but when I play guitar it's not just for the listener, but also for me. The main problem with your example is that you're comparing two strats which I personally consider horrible guitars until you hit the $1,000+ mark. Clones are often better quality for the same price. It really comes down to who you're trying to impress. If you want impress all the kids in school, get a new SG or, my personal favorite of crap-sounding popular instruments, a warlock and run it through a Marshall, then throw some Line6 digital effects in to really amp up the mediocrity. If you want to sound good, then that's an entirely different matter. You'll have to agree that among 3 of the "same" starter guitars, one will sound better than the others. If not, I'll just have to agree to disagree.
Melissia wrote:No, it's not bad. Why? Simple, if it was bad, I wouldn't enjoy it.
Yes, before anyone says it again, duh, no gak, it's subjective, it's just my opinion, yada yada yada But that's the only way that I am willing to gauge good music.
...aaaaand pet peeve. It's not that it's not bad or good based on you liking it, it's whether you like it or not that is based on you liking it. I can't listen to certain jazz artists but they're still objectively good.
Basically, music has both an objective and a subjective component. "Mike Portnoy plays faster than 90% of the drummers who ever lived" is an objective statement, whereas "Ignition is more listenable than Conspiracy of One" is very subjective. I listen to artists that aren't good in many ways, and I dislike many artists who are. That just comes down to enjoying music, which is what you're talking about.
Like I always say, you can like a child's fingerpainting more than a Rembrandt, but that doesn't mean that the Rembrandt didn't take more talent or effort to produce.
Music exists on two scales of 'Good'. One is completely objective (physical talent, compositional aptitude, creativity). One is completely subjective (personal preference). So many people fail to understand this.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
The thing I'm driving at is that you would know the difference in play. Yes, musicians tend to have hyper-sensitive ears, but when I play guitar it's not just for the listener, but also for me. The main problem with your example is that you're comparing two strats which I personally consider horrible guitars until you hit the $1,000+ mark. Clones are often better quality for the same price.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. My point is that the difference between low-end guitars (often clones) and mid-range guitars is largely the electronics. Mid-range guitars are still factory produced, and the price difference between the two is not because they're using high-quality woods in the mid-range guitars, but because they're using better electronic components. I don't think the original poster was interested in buying a PRS to learn to play on, you know.
You'll have to agree that among 3 of the "same" starter guitars, one will sound better than the others. If not, I'll just have to agree to disagree.
You mean you could pick one of three factory mass-produced squires as sounding better than the others? Or that one of three guitars in the $200 price range sounds better? I agree with the second statement, but not the first. The mass-produced instruments are so similar these days due to modern manufacturing technology that I don't think I could tell one from another by sound alone.
This wasn't always the case. As recently as 30 years ago, there was variety among low-end instruments and you could find real gems if you spent the time looking. They'd run out of a component and so substitute a different one. I've actually done a lot of rewiring work on guitars (and tube amps) and the differences in some older models can be surprising.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:...aaaaand pet peeve. It's not that it's not bad or good based on you liking it, it's whether you like it or not that is based on you liking it. I can't listen to certain jazz artists but they're still objectively good.
No, they're talented. There's a difference between good music and talented artists, though talented artists typically produce good music, the difference is quite distinct.
What constitutes good music is entirely subjective, but one can argue for one artist being more talented than the other.
Melissia wrote:No, they're talented. There's a difference between good music and talented artists, though talented artists typically produce good music, the difference is quite distinct.
What constitutes good music is entirely subjective, but one can argue for one artist being more talented than the other.
Being talented is defined as being good at something, hence 'Objectively good'. The difference may be distinct to you, but your personal preference towards what makes good music exists in your mind alone.
No one in their right mind would try to argue the subjective nature of personal preference. Most musical debates exist as a reflection of the artist's talent, not personal resonance.
Personally, my enjoyment of music stems from an artist's talent completely (rather than what 'feeling' the artist is trying to convey), so 'talented music' and 'good music' are one and the same to me.
Redbeard wrote:
You mean you could pick one of three factory mass-produced squires as sounding better than the others? Or that one of three guitars in the $200 price range sounds better? I agree with the second statement, but not the first. The mass-produced instruments are so similar these days due to modern manufacturing technology that I don't think I could tell one from another by sound alone.
I actually mean both. I believe there can be a huge difference in sound (huge being huge to me, of course ) difference in sound between even the cheapest instruments. Some just sound and feel better than others. I'm not the guy to run down to guitar center immediately and pick up the first thing that looks pretty obviously (not implying anything about you).
Redbeard wrote: I guess since this is the Musically Po'ed thread, I'll throw that out too. Bad music isn't suddenly good because the writer was deep or angsty. Being wordy is no excuse for not knowing things like keys, time signatures, being in tune, or staying in time.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:...aaaaand pet peeve. It's not that it's not bad or good based on you liking it, it's whether you like it or not that is based on you liking it. I can't listen to certain jazz artists but they're still objectively good.
No, they're talented. There's a difference between good music and talented artists, though talented artists typically produce good music, the difference is quite distinct.
What constitutes good music is entirely subjective, but one can argue for one artist being more talented than the other.
Talent is also a subjective term, it's qualitative not quantitative.
I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
edit: technically, you can insert any album there.
That's what everyone does.
Hell, the amount of abuse My Chemical Romance gets is just obscene. And then I ask people what they don't like about it, and they're usually: "... I dunno, I've never heard their stuff."
ShumaGorath wrote:Talent is also a subjective term, it's qualitative not quantitative.
Right, but it exists on an objective scale based on clearly measurable factors, so it's actually worth debating.
Not in this setting where none of you have the credentials to objectively measure those factors, nor are any of you actually... Y'know... Doing so anyway.
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
edit: technically, you can insert any album there.
That's what everyone does.
Hell, the amount of abuse My Chemical Romance gets is just obscene. And then I ask people what they don't like about it, and they're usually: "... I dunno, I've never heard their stuff."
Yeah, I'm not their biggest fan, but I do like some of their pieces...
Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".
edit: technically, you can insert any album there.
That's what everyone does.
Hell, the amount of abuse My Chemical Romance gets is just obscene. And then I ask people what they don't like about it, and they're usually: "... I dunno, I've never heard their stuff."
Yeah, I'm not their biggest fan, but I do like some of their pieces...
I really hate some songs, but really enjoy others. Everyone just likes to get on the bandwagon.
I hate when people do that.
Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.
There are numerous other factors, such as accuracy, understanding of disonance and harmony, ability to keep time (especially when you start throwing multiple time signatures and polyrythms into the mix), how many techniques a musician employs to play his or her instrument, and knowledge of various scales and chords.
When you get to the upper echelons of music, it becomes difficult to really pick a 'best' musician, as they're all working towards different goals.
Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.
There are numerous other factors, such as accuracy, understanding of disonance and harmony, ability to keep time (especially when you start throwing multiple time signatures and polyrythms into the mix), how many techniques a musician employs to play his or her instrument, and knowledge of various scales and chords.
When you get to the upper echelons of music, it becomes difficult to really pick a 'best' musician, as they're all working towards different goals.
When you get to the upper echelons of music, it's all technically awesome, but sounds crap.
Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.
There are numerous other factors, such as accuracy, understanding of disonance and harmony, ability to keep time (especially when you start throwing multiple time signatures and polyrythms into the mix), how many techniques a musician employs to play his or her instrument, and knowledge of various scales and chords.
When you get to the upper echelons of music, it becomes difficult to really pick a 'best' musician, as they're all working towards different goals.
When you get to the upper echelons of music, it's all technically awesome, but sounds crap.
The joy in technical music lies in being able to pick it apart and truly understand the artist's intention. You gain a sense of pride and accomplishment from 'figuring it out' that you just won't find in other forms of music, and it actually gives you something in return for investing your time into listening to it. Also, the mathematical and self-referential patterns found throughout are endlessly interesting to those willing to search for them. It's completely engaging, and it's very difficult to get bored of technical music simply because it's so hard to memorize.
Honestly, I have become completely desensitized to anything that doesn't 'sound like crap', simply because my level of stimulus when it comes to music has been set so high. Simple music pisses me off and bores me to no end, and it doesn't offer me anything that remotely compares to technical music.
Someone made me listen to some uber technical jazz a while ago, and while I could except that they were doing some really good stuff, it still sounded like someone was trying their new chainsaw out on my eardrums.
Music for me is mainly just background noise, I hate silence.
Composers aren't themselves necessarily good musicians. The skill of musical composition is different from the skill of manipulating an instrument.
It's like the difference between Rhapsody of Fire and Dragonforce. Dragonforce is definitely better at the technical sklil of playing their instruments... but their composition skill sucks compared to Rhapsody of Fire.
Composers aren't themselves necessarily good musicians. The skill of musical composition is different from the skill of manipulating an instrument.
It's like the difference between Rhapsody of Fire and Dragonforce. Dragonforce is definitely better at the technical sklil of playing their instruments... but their composition skill sucks compared to Rhapsody of Fire.
I was more commenting on how silly that statement was in the first place.
Melissia wrote:Just because someone is technically a good musician doesn't mean they're a competent composer of music.
What constitutes a 'competent composer of music'? Is that some misplaced need for a consistant time signature, or the inclusion of an intro, bridge, and verse, ad nauseum?
Compositional aptitude is absolutely necessary in order for someone to show that they are a good musician. However, mainstream restrictions only serve to limit someone's possibilities as a composer (and therefore, as a musician).
Also, if Dragonforce is the best example of 'Technical Music' you can give me, then we have a lot of work to do. There is absolutely nothing technical about Dragonforce, it's mind-numbingly simple music played at a breakneck speed. Herman Li can't even play his own material live, and that, to me, breaks a cardinal rule of musicianship.
Melissia wrote:False. Being good at the technical task of manipulating an instrument to create noise is not tied to the creative task of writing a musical piece.
A good composition is necessary in order to show that a musician is adept at manipulating their instrument. Skill may not be tied to creativity, but a musican can only be as good as the music he's playing. A good composition will also test a musician's limits. For instance, give Herman Li a piece of music written by Muhammad Suicmez, and I would bet money that he couldn't play it.
In order for me to consider someone to be a truly good musician, they must also be a brilliant composer. They are two sides to the same coin, and must be balanced in order for me to fully respect someone's musical skill.
Feel free to ignore the true nature of music if it makes you feel better. I, for one, gain immense amounts of enjoyment from picking apart the core objective and technical aspects of music.
Chrysaor686 wrote:The joy in technical music lies in being able to pick it apart and truly understand the artist's intention. You gain a sense of pride and accomplishment from 'figuring it out' that you just won't find in other forms of music, and it actually gives you something in return for investing your time into listening to it. Also, the mathematical and self-referential patterns found throughout are endlessly interesting to those willing to search for them. It's completely engaging, and it's very difficult to get bored of technical music simply because it's so hard to memorize.
Honestly, I have become completely desensitized to anything that doesn't 'sound like crap', simply because my level of stimulus when it comes to music has been set so high. Simple music pisses me off and bores me to no end, and it doesn't offer me anything that remotely compares to technical music.
Ugh, I love you. As for the second part of your post, I got really, REALLY into Dream Theater in high school. It made my head physically hurt at first. Given time I've come to find I really like simple stuff too because there are different things to analyze. Commercial music - that is, making a record that will sell in the millions - is an incredibly complex artform in itself. I've gotten to be a lot less snobby over time, but I still appreciate anything uber technical as well
And for the naysayers, different strokes for different folks. Just because some people like Sudoku doesn't mean everyone else thinks math is fun or recreational.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And for the naysayers, different strokes for different folks. Just because some people like Sudoku doesn't mean everyone else thinks math is fun or recreational.
Isn't that what I've been saying all this time? Oh wait, it is.
I would say I don't find Sudoku entertaining. Challenging, yes, and objectively good for the mind (because it is mental exercise and thus keeps your mind active) but not entertaining.
Soladrin wrote:The true "nature" of music is that it either sounds good, or it doesn't, and its completely subjective.
How and why and what you like/dislike is just up to the person.
So.. who cares.
I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion. Without the system that it is dependant on, even the simplest music would fall apart at the seams.
As a casual listener, you can feel free to ignore this and explore the 'emotional' aspects of music. Musicians, however, cannot, or you wouldn't have any music to listen to at all!
Soladrin wrote:The true "nature" of music is that it either sounds good, or it doesn't, and its completely subjective.
How and why and what you like/dislike is just up to the person.
So.. who cares.
I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion. Without the system that it is dependant on, even the simplest music would fall apart at the seams.
As a casual listener, you can feel free to ignore this and explore the 'emotional' aspects of music. Musicians, however, cannot, or you wouldn't have any music to listen to at all!
Soladrin wrote:The true "nature" of music is that it either sounds good, or it doesn't, and its completely subjective.
How and why and what you like/dislike is just up to the person.
So.. who cares.
I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion. Without the system that it is dependant on, even the simplest music would fall apart at the seams.
As a casual listener, you can feel free to ignore this and explore the 'emotional' aspects of music. Musicians, however, cannot, or you wouldn't have any music to listen to at all!
Some people just "feel it out" and are naturally talented. They tend to get esoteric really quickly, but they do exist (see most techno DJs). They don't realize they're just doing the musical math subconsciously
Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:Some people just "feel it out" and are naturally talented. They tend to get esoteric really quickly, but they do exist (see most techno DJs). They don't realize they're just doing the musical math subconsciously
There may be musicians that 'play by ear', but as you said, they're simply figuring out the mathematical aspects of music without giving it any conscious thought. Unfortunately, this will limit anyone's potential, and having a strong foundation in theory is always good for your musicianship.
Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:Ugh, I love you. As for the second part of your post, I got really, REALLY into Dream Theater in high school. It made my head physically hurt at first. Given time I've come to find I really like simple stuff too because there are different things to analyze. Commercial music - that is, making a record that will sell in the millions - is an incredibly complex artform in itself. I've gotten to be a lot less snobby over time, but I still appreciate anything uber technical as well
And for the naysayers, different strokes for different folks. Just because some people like Sudoku doesn't mean everyone else thinks math is fun or recreational.
While I agree that creating infectious hooks to feed into the mainstream is an art in itself, it's an art that requires considerably less effort. Most 'hooks' have been catalogued at this point.
You know what's funny? I actually hate doing math. It's my downfall; it hurts my brain. Somehow, when translated to music, it becomes infinitely more enjoyable to me.
Soladrin wrote:Well, I've never seen bands with calculators...
chaplaingrabthar wrote:I've always wanted to play an instrument (specifically saxaphone) but never had the time or budget (when I have the money to buy a decent starter sax, I notice a new Codex and army that looks attractive, or maybe a new game like Warmahordes or...
Start with toughness 1-1.5 reeds, Rico will do just fine when you're starting. Basic mouth position (ambature, pronounced omborchure) is to curl your lower lip in over your teeth, tighten the corners of your mouth, and blow gently, using your diaphragm, NOT YOUR NECK, to push air through the instrument. So the air should come from your chest/belly, so to speak. Have fun, the Sax is a great instrument.
Chrysaor686 wrote:I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion.
I have to disagree here. Well, apart from the obvious that, if you really want to, you could break anything down to a multi-dimensional equation - that's what physics is afterall.
But there is more to music than just the equation - that's why we want humans to play it, rather than computers. Technically, I could program a sequencer to play the rights notes at the right times. But it's missing something, like a soul. You think B.B. King thinks of music as an equation? Ray Charles? Music is no more an equation than throwing a ball. And, while you can express what you hear in the form of an equation (just like you can express the flight of the ball in terms of an equation), to say that is the all of it is absolutely ridiculous.
There's a reason that Dragonforce has to play 200 notes a second - it's cause they're hoping they get the right one. Clapton can play one note and have the same effect...
Composers aren't themselves necessarily good musicians. The skill of musical composition is different from the skill of manipulating an instrument.
It's like the difference between Rhapsody of Fire and Dragonforce. Dragonforce is definitely better at the technical sklil of playing their instruments... but their composition skill sucks compared to Rhapsody of Fire.
So Rhapsody of Fire is the gold medal winner at the Special Olympics?
Redbeard wrote:I have to disagree here. Well, apart from the obvious that, if you really want to, you could break anything down to a multi-dimensional equation - that's what physics is afterall.
But there is more to music than just the equation - that's why we want humans to play it, rather than computers. Technically, I could program a sequencer to play the rights notes at the right times. But it's missing something, like a soul. You think B.B. King thinks of music as an equation? Ray Charles? Music is no more an equation than throwing a ball. And, while you can express what you hear in the form of an equation (just like you can express the flight of the ball in terms of an equation), to say that is the all of it is absolutely ridiculous.
There's a reason that Dragonforce has to play 200 notes a second - it's cause they're hoping they get the right one. Clapton can play one note and have the same effect...
I'm not saying that mathematics is the entirety of music, but rather, the fundamental basis upon which music is allowed to exist. You must first have structure in order to have 'soul', and I'm sure both B.B. King and Ray Charles recognized this wholeheartedly.
The difference between mathematics in physics and mathematics in music is that mathematics was applied to real-world physical motion after the fact, whereas written music has been based in mathematics since it's inception. Anything that does not follow the guidelines set forth by written music ends up sounding sloppy and cacophonous, even to the untrained ear.
People program music (and enjoy programmed music) all the time, despite it lacking the physical skill that is present with performed music. In order to truly experience everything music has to offer, one must delve into the 'soulless' realm of music theory. In doing so, they will have a much greater respect for the intelligence, skill, and creativity of truly talented musicians, and their enjoyment will not be limited by the 'feeling' that a song conveys.
The reason that Dragonforce 'plays' (hahah) 200 notes a second is to impress the people who don't know any better.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
The reason that Dragonforce 'plays' (hahah) 200 notes a second is to impress the people who don't know any better.
I agree with your reasoning, though I would argue that the reason Dragonforce plays that style is because it makes money and they enjoy it. You pick the order of the two. And I'd say commercial writing is just as complex as technical composition in trying to score that perfect combination that sticks around. Some songs fade out while others still get requested years and years down the road; that's a feat in itself. I don't see being incredibly complex as the end-all, be-all, though I appreciate the value. The ultimate point of music is whatever of the following you feel like that second: doing something you enjoy, creating something you can be passionate about, creating something people will enjoy or find meaning in, making money, testing your skills to see how far you can go, or whatever else you want to come up with. Sometimes I really have to retreat to a room and blare some prog rock for a while to wash away the perceived stupidity of the universe, and other times I really need a catchy dance tune to get completely fethed up and sing along to. Make me a playlist of 10 songs or so and PM me
I hope you enjoy your fair share of Tech/Prog Metal. That is the form of music that I tend to gravitate towards, being an avid guitar player. This may take a while, as condensing all of the music that I listen to into a 'Top 10' is quite a feat.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
In order to truly experience everything music has to offer, one must delve into the 'soulless' realm of music theory.
Oh, I agree with this - but I also believe the opposite - in order to truly experience everything music has to offer, one must also venture away from the math and rules and experience the emotional side of music as well. I like Dream Theater, but I also like the Ramones. Each offers something different, but both are music.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Okay, I am officially hacked off. I was listening to Arcade Fires "Wake Up" and I realized that I was mad. I then realized that I was mad becuase I wasn't actually playing music, and have NEVER owned a instrument, and as such, have never played a song, even a cruddy one. Now I'm mad again. This stinks. I REALLY need an instrument
Sooo...What would a good guitar set up (Electric Bass, or just Electric) cost, including Amps? I really am not looking for anything top-notch, just something I can use as an emotional funnel. Shoot, I would be happy with a red cheapo plastic guitar, like Jack Whites first one. Any recommendations?
Bravey
Go get yourself a halfway decent acoustic guitar
I think music stores are one of the few places that still provide good customer service
But beware of anything that seems to cheap as ultra cheap guitars dont really play well and nothings worst then having to "fight: the intrument to get a decent sound outta it when your learning.
You should be able to learn some open chords in a week or two and be strumming away happily
Stormrider wrote:So Rhapsody of Fire is the gold medal winner at the Special Olympics?
Yeah, that's a moronic comparison. Rhapsody of Fire is still technically talented, but their compositional skills far overwhelm the technical expertise advantage that Dragonforce has, because Dragonforce has very little compositional skill. Rhapsody of Fire stirs the soul with their expertly composed musical pieces involving a wide range of instruments, while Dragonforce impresses the mind with their technical skill with their guitars. And really, all you ever need to listen to for Dragonforce is Through Fire and Flames, and the rest of their music is pretty much just more of that.
In case it wasn't blatantly obvious by now, I prefer the former.
Stormrider wrote:So Rhapsody of Fire is the gold medal winner at the Special Olympics?
Yeah, that's a moronic comparison. Rhapsody of Fire is still technically talented, but their compositional skills far overwhelm the technical expertise advantage that Dragonforce has, because Dragonforce has very little compositional skill. Rhapsody of Fire stirs the soul with their expertly composed musical pieces involving a wide range of instruments, while Dragonforce impresses the mind with their technical skill with their guitars.
They're both still over the top, Dragonforce's songwriting ability is laughable. Calling Rhapsody anything more than a novelty is a pretty large stretch. Hence why I really don't like symphonic metal.
There are numerous other factors, such as accuracy, understanding of disonance and harmony, ability to keep time (especially when you start throwing multiple time signatures and polyrythms into the mix), how many techniques a musician employs to play his or her instrument, and knowledge of various scales and chords.
There is absolutely nothing technical about Dragonforce's music, it's just extremely elementary scales and hooks, played at a ridiculous speed. Considering that it's a patchwork of studio-edited takes of Herman Li playing for about five seconds at a time (sometimes even sped up with the aid of a computer), it's not a viable example of consistant, accurate speed, even.
If you need some examples of real, technical skill, I'd be more than happy to show you some. Remember, a musician can only be as good as the music he's playing.
This thread reminds me of some typical banter I read/write on an entirely unrelated music forum. To the unskilled, non-playing ear, a few basic tricks most guitarists learn how to do (poorly) in their first year or so can sound like amazing technical skill.
With digital recording and the ability to cut and paste together guitar parts on a computer, any guitarist can sound like the most ridiculously fast playing wizard of the fretboard if that's his taste. A basic book of music theory 101 can teach you which notes on which scale go well for counterpoint and variations in whichever key, making you seem like you have some kind of 'composition' talent when really it just comes down to a computer programmable math equation.
Yay Herman Li can play fast. That isn't musicianship, it's closer to gymnastics than art.
"Oh yeah?", say the Dragonforce fans, "If you know so much, then why aren't you selling as many albums?" (or like the Metallica defenders, "If they suck so bad now, why do they still sell out every show?"
The answer to that is simple: Amazing skill does not sell albums. playing the game and schmoozing the right scene and having the right look and the right place at the right time and getting pimped by an agent and distributor and payola to radio stations sells albums. There are plenty of old crusty Iron Maiden aged dudes in their basements who can play just like Iron Maiden. They didn't happen to be in Iron Maiden though when the time was right to sell that sound. I doubt if Jack White or Billy Joe whatshisname care much about what a 32nd note is and they are famous guitar players. Likewise, extremely good guitarists are a dime a dozen. They can be found in any guitar shop and there's probably one on almost every dorm floor of most colleges, or in every small town metal band that plays the local bars, but they don't have recording contracts either.
I personally know a guy from a very well known band who I shall not name (but you have all heard of) from the early-mid 90s who confessed to me he doesn't even know what chord he's playing most of the time, he just mashes his fingers around a lot. Most of the music biz is just that. 'making it big' is far more of a job playing the game and the 'biz' side than the actual music side.
I would still rather hear a real musician playing something interesting slowly than what amounts to a computer program playing something 'technical' quickly. Hendrix would roll over in his grave if he heard some of what poses as talent in modern guitar playing, particularly the power metal kids. But for every nay-saying guitar player out there who isn't fooled by the studio tricks and technique shortcuts, there's a hundred non guitar-players who bow down in awe because they don't know how its done. aka fans.
Anyhoo, to the OP, google search for 'electric guitar packages' and you'll get some idea of beginner guitar setups. Usually its a small 'practice' amp, a guitar that is playable, but could use better pickups, and the cable and picks and strap and all that stuff to start off with for between $100-$200 U.S. new. Sometimes, if you dig around your local pawn shop you can find something too (or craigslist) but those don't come with any garauntee so you might have an amp that blows out in a week and sucks for you.
Not that I'm a huge fan of them (preferring the excellent compositions of Rhapsody of Fire instead), but that old rumor about dragonforce speeding up their guitar playing has long since been disproven...
So what about people who ignore the music scene and purchase/listen to music based on the fact they like the sound instead of the technical skill that went in to it?
Melissia wrote:Not that I'm a huge fan of them (preferring the excellent compositions of Rhapsody of Fire instead), but that old rumor about dragonforce speeding up their guitar playing has long since been disproven...
If you've seen them live, then you'd eat your words.
Personally, that was the most horrendous show I've ever been to (not that I enjoy their music to begin with). None of the members of Dragonforce have the stamina or composure to play a live show. They can't even finish one of their songs; after the first few minutes they are completely gassed, and continue to fumble around with their instruments in a desperate attempt to please the crowd. Perhaps I caught them on a bad day, but it was bad enough that me and my friends left halfway through their set.
Thankfully, it was payed for by someone who thought I'd enjoy it. He still apologizes to me about it occasionally.
Chrysaor686 wrote:If you've seen them live, then you'd eat your words.
Not that I typically bother listening to live music, But... no, I wouldn't.
I saw videos of them in 2006 sucking hard (IE that's when the rumors began to form about them speeding things up), then videos of them getting the notes perfectly fine in 2008. Which means they're inconsistent, but they don't have to speed themselves up.
Dragonforce is a band you listen to the studio versions of because that really is usually the best performance they put on. Other bands and singers are better live, because they are better at improvisation (most Jazz is like this)... so long as you can get over the noise of the crowd and the obnoxiousness of the scene, which I personally can't.
Melissia wrote:So And really, all you ever need to listen to for Dragonforce is Through Fire and Flames, and the rest of their music is pretty much just more of that.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:I've always wanted to play an instrument (specifically saxaphone) but never had the time or budget (when I have the money to buy a decent starter sax, I notice a new Codex and army that looks attractive, or maybe a new game like Warmahordes or...
Start with toughness 1-1.5 reeds, Rico will do just fine when you're starting. Basic mouth position (ambature, pronounced omborchure) is to curl your lower lip in over your teeth, tighten the corners of your mouth, and blow gently, using your diaphragm, NOT YOUR NECK, to push air through the instrument. So the air should come from your chest/belly, so to speak. Have fun, the Sax is a great instrument.
This is actually the embouchure for the Clarinet . It is however the most common saxophone embouchure, at least here, as alot of saxophone teachers here in Australia actually primarily play other woodwind instruments, and picked up the sax so they could get more work (Reed books.....6 instrument changes in a single song). The technically correct embouchure for the saxophone is shown in the following image as Fig. 5, however the other embouchure does allow for an easier time for the musician to learn the Clarinet, and eventually the Oboe if they wish.
Another tip for an aspiring saxophone player would be to work on not blowing your cheeks out when you play. It makes it harder to get a smooth air-flow, and tends to lend itself to starting and stopping the air-flowing in your neck, and not getting good 'air support'. It also makes you go red in the face, and look ridiculous .
---
Do you have to be a good composer to be a good musician? I'd like to think not. I teach instrumental music for a living, and have played in the show bands for the bigger productions to come down here, but if you asked me to compose a new piece, it would turn out quite poor. I understand and can implement the theory, but my works will never have the soul you can hear in Chopin, Nat King Cole, or, to use the group Melissia has been singing praises of for most of the thread , and are actually quite good, Rhapsody of Fire. They'll never seem alive, there will never be any 'connection' and will always be a technical work.
However, there are other forms in which a musician can express themselves. 'Ad Lib' (Improvisation) is not true composition, but you still have to understand every part of the music you're playing, what chords are coming, what notes are in that chord, and which licks you can fit into that chord in the current key you're in. It also tends to be a form that jazz musicians excell in (Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie being two of the big greats in the 'be-bop' genre). It takes just as much understanding as composition in a way, just you have the backing written in, or made up as the case may be (A jam session with a sax, guitar, bass, drums and keys is a hell of a lot of fun), and work around that.
Music is music. It's emotion, sound and story-telling all rolled into one. It's different for everyone. Some prefer a more technical aspect, while others like to listen to some forms of rap, or other genres, that aren't technically sound, but attempt to forge a connection with the listener through rhymes, and deep, emotional lyrics. Trying to say a genre isn't music, or good music, is just opinion, and can't be considered anything but, unless you actually talk in a technical aspect, but even then, it's only true when 'technically' is placed in front of it. I may not enjoy rap in any form, or any of the new 'teeny' artists, but I accept some do, quite alot....same as others once had to accept (And still do), that I listen to artists they've never heard of (Being a teenager who listens to Dean Martin, Sinatra, Bennett, the Duke, Lady Ella etc. can be quite painful at times. I still remember getting my license, and having people get in my car and ask what the crap coming out of the CD player was.)
Personal opinions are everything in music, you can hate a song that everyone else loves and they won't be able to understand why, but you simply can't connect with it in a way another song that others think less of can.
Music is enriched by each and every addition, whether it's an auto-tune artist such as T-Pain, or someone who's far more technically brilliant (Such as an Opera Singer). It becomes more than it once was, and gives more people something that they can appreciate and listen to..... unless it's Mr. 'I can't hit puberty'.....joking.
