The boys are back harmony

  • I agree, mandatory is too strong of a word. There are certainly a group of talented guitarists for which these things are not mandatory. There are guitarists that have an innate talent for the instrument which allows for circumvention of traditional knowledge and teaching. So, I should probably reformulate my statement. I believe these things are mandatory for the majority of guitarists to become accomplished, well-rounded, professional guitarists. BTW, I don't count sight reading as mandatory for the great majority of guitarists.

  • I agree, mandatory is too strong of a word. There are certainly a group of talented guitarists for which these things are not mandatory. There are guitarists that have an innate talent for the instrument which allows for circumvention of traditional knowledge and teaching. So, I should probably reformulate my statement. I believe these things are mandatory for the majority of guitarists to become accomplished, well-rounded, professional guitarists. BTW, I don't count sight reading as mandatory for the great majority of guitarists.

    I still think that is too strong but it depends what, as a guitarist, you want to do ( blimey this is getting very philosophical !).


    I'm not regularly writing my own music. I'm too old to become famous and I'd rather play in front of large crowds playing other peoples music than struggle with my own music. I get very little satisfaction creating something that few people listen to. Yes cynical but I think realistic. Music is a hobby I have to relax


    Regardless to be able to play well, its not necessary to know theory as Tab and explanation videos exist and you can use your ears to both work things out and play around/improvise.


    Now what I TOTALLY agree with is that theory and fret board knowledge (which I think goes well together) opens up options, choice, creativity and definitely makes you a more complete guitarist. So its not mandatory for any guitarist BUT its highly beneficial. The exception I think would be session work where the lack of theory but also sight reading I imagine would be highly restrictive in that context.

  • Yes, this is getting philosophical and off the topic. Sorry to the OP for that. I don't want to derail it any further. It seems this discussion comes down to what we each consider to be an accomplished guitarist. There are certainly exceptions to every rule. Musical savant comes to mind. The human brain is certainly interesting.

  • Regardless to be able to play well, its not necessary to know theory as Tab and explanation videos exist and you can use your ears to both work things out and play around/improvise.

    One more thing if I could? The first 10 years that I played, I thought I played well and many others did as well. I could play interesting lines and be creative within specific boundaries and fretboard boxes. But I was limited by a lack of knowledge. I knew all the note names on the fretboard, but very little theory or how to apply it. My playing improved significantly after i made a commitment to learn theory and how to apply and visualize it on the fretboard. Playing changes in real time became possible and important to me. Being able transpose to different keys became a reality. Not just up or down a few semitones or frets, but up or down a forth or fifth for example. Playing modes made sense finally. Sorry, I couldn't resist this one additional comment.

  • Sorry, I couldn't resist this one additional comment

    No problem here, Personally, If it gives someone something meaningful to talk about, that's great!. I may be a little different but don't get upset if posts go OT as long as it's entertaining and constructive. This is the only board I am on because the people here are so cool and virtually zero buttholes.

  • No problem here, Personally, If it gives someone something meaningful to talk about, that's great!. I may be a little different but don't get upset if posts go OT as long as it's entertaining and constructive. This is the only board I am on because the people here are so cool and virtually zero buttholes.

    Same here :)

  • No problem here, Personally, If it gives someone something meaningful to talk about, that's great!. I may be a little different but don't get upset if posts go OT as long as it's entertaining and constructive. This is the only board I am on because the people here are so cool and virtually zero buttholes.

    Me too

  • No problem here, Personally, If it gives someone something meaningful to talk about, that's great!. I may be a little different but don't get upset if posts go OT as long as it's entertaining and constructive. This is the only board I am on because the people here are so cool and virtually zero buttholes.

    Cool people like me. :P

    The more you find what Kemper can do then the harder you try to find what it cannot do -- like make a good cup of Frappuccino.

  • I agree. Lots of cool people on this board!


    I also agree you don't need to sight read to be a good guitarist. I had lessons from the age of 7. I was taught to read notes as I played; however, before my teacher left me each week, he would play the lesson I was to learn for the next week.


    I play by ear. Once was more than enough for me to only use the sheet music for a general "yea, it goes up here and down there and does that run thing here...etc". As a result, I don't read music to this day (almost 50 years later).


    I also am fairly ignorant of music theory, but I can cold sing or cold play a harmony to any song I know.


    I agree that all this built in advantage would be well served with some music theory to back it up! The problem is ..... I am just too lazy, and YouTube videos really take the guess work out when my ear can't quite cut it :).


    The harmonies in the song associated with this thread uses multiple types of harmony in different parts of the lead. I can very clearly hear it and could have reproduced it by ear. To get a harmonizer to do it programmatically would require lots of effort on my part. Way more than just doing it on the looper :).


    My hat is off to those of you that can whip your way around a programmable harmonizer. Very cool skill IMO.

  • My hat is off to those of you that can whip your way around a programmable harmonizer. Very cool skill IMO.

    Definitely no whipping around here. But I'll get there eventually, it's really not that tough. I'm like 50% theory and 50% "take a stab at it" when I choose scales. I was jacking with the harmonizer tonight, it tracked very well and the only times it didn't was when I hit a note sharp or flat and understandably confused it, but overall it's a killer tool to have in your box.

  • ……but I can cold sing or cold play a harmony to any song I know.


    That sir, is a very coo skill.


    I take my hat off to you.


    I am the opposite unfortunately. I can read enough to learn stuff but my sight reading isn’t good enough to do theatre work etc (basically I’ too lazy to put in the work to get it there). I have an ear that can get through to a reasonable degree but need to really listen hard several times to get parts down. I rely on theory knowledge to help me out and do the heavy lifting which my reading and ear then fill in and flesh out. I have always been extremely jealous of you guys that can just hear something once and play it.


    The harmonies in the song associated with this thread uses multiple types of harmony in different parts of the lead. I can very clearly hear it and could have reproduced it by ear. To get a harmonizer to do it programmatically would require lots of effort on my part. Way more than just doing it on the looper :).


    My hat is off to those of you that can whip your way around a programmable harmonizer. Very cool skill IMO.

    Even when the harmonies change it is often possible to find a way to make the parts work with a bit of creative thinking. However, this one would be a real challenge (more than its worth in my opinion). Although the harmonies in paults rig aren’t “correct “ they are close enough for live use to give the listener the impression of the original band. I would probably just use Paul’s settings if doing it live.


    The idea I used for the interlude section was to find out if a single note (say C for example) had two different harmonies at different points in the line. Where this was the case, I harmonised one “from the C note to the harmony” then I harmonised the other “from the harmony to the C” this required me to play a different line but ave the overall combined result come out right. Unfortunately, in the outro section there are places where the same note needs more than two different harmony notes which would require the previous approach PLUS morphing between user scales 1 and 2 for individual notes AND changing rigs for each of the different harmony sections (because the use scales are saved at the Rig level rather than FX preset level). I still think I could get pretty close to doing it but the effort to do so and more importantly to be able to play it live just isn’t worth it in my opinion.

  • I know, old thread but i finally got off my lazy ass and tied to figure it out. Album version off YT. Harmonic Pitch, interval 1 Unison, Interval 2 +3rd. Key is Ab(Fm relative minor). Probably in A but tuned down a half step. Play the BOTTOM line.

  • I know, old thread but i finally got off my lazy ass and tied to figure it out. Album version off YT. Harmonic Pitch, interval 1 Unison, Interval 2 +3rd. Key is Ab(Fm relative minor). Probably in A but tuned down a half step. Play the BOTTOM line.

    Close enough for jazz :D

    There's actually a lot more to it that makes it impossible to do with a harmonizer but simple 3rds will definitely fool most people at a gig.