Is anyone here self taught

koneguitarist

I don't say do not learn musical theorey, only don't worry about if you don't as plenty of people make great music without learning it all.

I know where my basic root is at all times and I can get around the neck, mainly using double stops or in my view collection of notes that fit together, someone else might call it a scale. 

I seem to go glassy eyed when people try to teach me theorey, I really struggle with it. But for a while a local guitar tutor who is a shit hot player and knows all the stuff(and it shows) was playing in my band video of him on YT with me, I asked him what should I be learning, as I said I think I would have been a better guitarist if I had had lessons, he told me, maybe you would know more, but would you be the guitarist you are now? With my style and lack of knowledge I do not rate myself however I am often asked how I play stuff, and scales etc that I use, because I sound different to most local players, make that all local players.

So yes, maybe I would be a better musician/guitarist knowing more theory and harmony etc and I certainly am not knocking anyone who has learnt it all going through the grades etc which is extremely tough, but I certainly do not want young players to be put off guitar lessons by too much theory as well. 

i am mistaken in Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles, daft mistake, I was just trying to make a point that not all musicians have studied music to produce great music, some people have it naturally.

I have a very cack handed technique that is bad even for me to watch, and I am too old to change it all now even if I wanted to. But I get by. 

randomhandclaps

I find it strange how any time a discussion comes up between guitarist about theory, those who do not understand theory seem to constantly refer the argument back to sight reading and ignore the gulf of helpful information in between.  Perhaps it really does serve to highlight how poorly some guitarist even understand the concept of theory let alone theory itself.

Another common theme is people referring to theory as being a set of rules.  It isn't.  There are no rules in music, there is only physics.  There sometimes seems to be a misbelief that a group of monks, dressed in black sat down one day and said "THESE ARE THE RULES BY WHICH ALL MUSIC SHALL EXIST." and though outside that are rule breakers.  It's a bit like when the Sex Pistols were claiming to be all anti music when in fact they were just subconsciously regurgitating early Beatles and Stones et al riffs.  In fact the only thing governing music are natural physics and cultural exposure.  As an example very few country music songs feature b5th harmonies.  Not because it's breaking some rules, just because it doesn't tend to fit with that cultural expression of music due to the physical relationship between the two notes.

octatonic

randomhandclaps said:

I find it strange how any time a discussion comes up between guitarist about theory, those who do not understand theory seem to constantly refer the argument back to sight reading and ignore the gulf of helpful information in between.  Perhaps it really does serve to highlight how poorly some guitarist even understand the concept of theory let alone theory itself.

We should also draw the distinction between sight reading and reading music.

They aren't really the same thing.

Sight reading is a specific skill that needs to be practiced, and to be able to read anything, in any key as soon as it is put in front of you takes oh, I don't know, about 20 years.

Reading isn't necessary but it is a convenient way of getting ideas across.

I bought some Jim Campilongo scores, made by the man himself and he doesn't read music.

He invented his own type of shorthand for where the notes are and it is really weird.

His notation method is difficult to understand and not comprehensive about where things should be and when, so you need the recordings to work it out.

With a musical score you don't and that is why it exists- because we didn't have recordings and it was the only way to get the music in other people's hands.

Sure, we now have recordings so you could argue that we don't need musical score- well, maybe.

But with a recording you need to play/stop/play/stop and take it in chunks.

With a musical score you open it up and if you can sight read you play it. If you can't sight read but you know what notation means then you go through it bar by bar until you learn it by rote.

The former is a challenge and hard to get to a pro standard, but the latter is fairly easy once you learn what the symbols mean.

koneguitarist

There will always be a divide by those that are trained and not trained, main argument is about feel or readers can't play without music etc. All daft ideas, but in some cases true.
A good musician is a good musician whether he reads or not in my view is immaterial.

Dave_Vader

Never had a proper "hold it like this and put your fingers here" type lesson, but did GCSE music back in the 90s when it was all scales, cadences and Bach still, so used the theory to apply it to playing. 

Theory is necessary, there's nothing worse than working with a guy who looks at you completely bemused when you tell him he should be playing a C#m. I've been in bands with people who know that little.

Plectrum

I totally agree with @Dave_Vader that you're really got to know the names of the chords (and notes) especially if you want to play with other musicians. How you get that knowledge is maybe less important.

randomhandclaps

Plectrum said:

How you get that knowledge is maybe less important.

Unless you murder someone and eat their brain in the hope of gaining the theoreical info they have learned. I think that it is important in that case.

stratman3142

randomhandclaps said:

  ... and Shaun Baxter at the time that they both also highlighted to me...

Well that's worth a Wow. You've obviously had a much better musical education than me.

I saw him a few times with his his trio, around the time Jazz Metal came out. I love that album. He (sort of) invented a new genre. I can't understand why it didn't take off. I suppose most people are generally locked into what they expect certain styles of  music to sound like and aren't able to deal with the cross overs. He was probably ahead of his time in doing the sort of thing that Mr G.G. is doing now.

thomasross20

Haven't read all the replies but great ones from @octatonic, I have to say. 

I don't know why I never really got guitar lessons after I left school. 

When I started to learn how to sing a few years back (which I've since given up) I got lessons. It just makes sense if you have the time, money and dedication to practice. I don't have the time these days (work, girlfriend, band, album etc). Hopefully at some point in the future. I reckon it'd be humbling ... I remember going to IGF a few years and there were these great players. The thing that tripped me up was playing over chord changes. Something I'm better at now but still.... And there are certain aspects of my technique that need sorting. I'm trying my best now but as octatonic says, a good teacher will stop you from developing bad habits early on. It might be hard work and exposing for the guitarist getting taught but worth it in the long run. 

Hell, maybe I should look at lessons in my locality after all...

I think you can get to a fair old stage yourself if you're honest with yourself, push the boundaries and play a lot. But perhaps not all the way. Maybe that's where playing in a band helps - baptism of fire and all that jazz.

PVO_Dave

When I first started out on guitar I had lessons, we started off with the basics, got to the point of playing some basic songs with tab, then his dad got really ill and he stopped lessons to go look after him, after than I muddled along on my own, figuring bits out, mainly by learning other peoples songs.

I know sweet fa about theory, unless it's a basic chord the likelihood of me knowing what it's called is slim. I find when learning anything, I'm a very visual learner, so getting my head down and reading up was never likely to work.

I find the above fairly embarrassing tbh, I can play, have played in bands etc.. and have been that guy that gives the blank looks when asked to play in a certain key/play a certain note far more times than I care to mention. It's not held me back writing my own stuff, other than I'm not much of a lead player (although the theory and scales would certainly help remedy that), but has made it difficult at times when playing covers, however I've always been upfront with the other band members about my ability.

In short, I'd highly recommend lessons, I'd rather have the knowledge and choose not to apply it, rather than have no choice and to wing it

57Deluxe

I learned all my bad habits and mistakes myself...

Phil_aka_Pip

57Deluxe said:

I learned all my bad habits and mistakes myself...

I've learned from all of my mistakes and I'm sure I could repeat them exactly (Peter Cook, aka Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling)

Alnico

I would like to ask a serious question.

Can someone tell me please why TAB is frowned upon when it's loads easier to read than the 'Magic Squiggles'.

I have always learned time signatures by listening to the actual music so i just don't get why i have to learn how to read a score ?

Theory in terms of scales and modes really interests me but again, just show me where the notes are and leave me to it. The musicality of it is surely in the fingers and the creative mind ?

This is based on NOT sight reading, so if i'm using a method to 'Learn', why would it matter that i'm using TAB or simply learning by watching and listening ?

I am self taught but i'm not averse to taking lessons, just don't seem to have the brain power to understand traditional sheet music AND translate that to the Fretboard.

Is this a valid question or have i missed the point?

octatonic

Tab requires that you know the rhythmic information. 

If you are only ever trying to learn music that you've heard before then fine, but you could argue that then you don't even really need the tab- just transcribe it aurally. 

You're right, with the guitar traditional notation tells you nothing about where to place the notes- that is a musical/tonal choice to a degree though. 

 Notation is hard to learn but ultimately quite freeing. Takes a while.

Alnico

octatonic said:

Tab requires that you know the rhythmic information. 

If you are only ever trying to learn music that you've heard before then fine, but you could argue that then you don't even really need the tab- just transcribe it aurally. 

You're right, with the guitar traditional notation tells you nothing about where to place the notes- that is a musical/tonal choice to a degree though. 

 Notation is hard to learn but ultimately quite freeing. Takes a while.

That's how i've mostly done it up to now but i take your point about Notation.

Maybe it's time to change, i don't know.

Thanks though for the reply.

stickyfiddle

TAB (at least, standard internet TAB) doesn't give you any information except where to put your fingers. Nothing on rhythm, dynamics, timing, key.

Of course you do get proper TAB that gives you all that (see below) but frankly reading the notation is just as easy and then means you don't need TAB at all.

For what it's worth I used to read notation well and could sight read very well on Sax, but am hopeless with both tab and notation on guitar.

http://www.guitar-players-toolbox.com/images/608xNxTabAndMusicNotation.png.pagespeed.ic.5ILLrGrVvx.png

Clarky

I'm self taught on guitar and drums and had drum lessons at school after I'd been playing for about a year or so..

interestingly.. now that I teach, I see my students advance so much more quickly than I did..

and it makes me a bit envious.. lmao

Phil_aka_Pip

octatonic said:

You're right, with the guitar traditional notation tells you nothing about where to place the notes- that is a musical/tonal choice to a degree though. 

A number in a circle tells you which string the note is on. A small number next to the note head tells you which finger to fret it with, Roman numerals above the stave tell you which position you should be in. You can't be more explicit than that! (applies to guitar music only - if you were transcribing music written for another instrument you'd have to work it out yourself)

Danchi

Had some lessons to begin with about scales and modes and stuff.

These days i generally play in tunings i make up on the fly so none of it has any real relevance anymore. I never have the first idea what key i'm in and just go by ear. 

EricTheWeary

Phil_aka_Pip said:

octatonic said:

You're right, with the guitar traditional notation tells you nothing about where to place the notes- that is a musical/tonal choice to a degree though. 

A number in a circle tells you which string the note is on. A small number next to the note head tells you which finger to fret it with, Roman numerals above the stave tell you which position you should be in. You can't be more explicit than that! (applies to guitar music only - if you were transcribing music written for another instrument you'd have to work it out yourself)

There are tab systems for other instruments. To some extent they deal with other issues as in other families of instruments there aren't usually multiple places to play the same note. But harmonica tab is well established ( it may well precede guitar tab) and I've seen tab for reed instruments and tab style systems for beginner piano. All tab systems show how to play what you can hear and are effectively useless in isolation from a recording to listen to. However, given that playing something from the last 80 years of jazz, blues, rock, pop, etc, will almost always reference a recording even if the standard notation exists then tab can be a useful aid for a pretty wide range of music.