I love the 'simplicity' of the Traveling Wilburys. It's a nice reminder that not all music has to be overly complex to be good. 'Tweeter and the Monkey Man' is a favorite of mine. I love the lyrics.
Also, Jim Keltner is a plus!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dan Corson IX: The 800 Pound Gorilla wrote: [/QUOTENAME] ..not all music has to be overly complex to be good.[/QUOTE]
I wish some people on this board would understand that.. But that's another discussion.
I wish some people on this board would understand that.. But that's another discussion.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dan Corson IX: The 800 Pound Gorilla wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I love the 'simplicity' of the Traveling Wilburys. It's a nice reminder that not all music has to be overly complex to be good. 'Tweeter and the Monkey Man' is a favorite of mine. I love the lyrics.
Also, Jim Keltner is a plus![/QUOTE]
I used to sing Tweeter and the Monkey Man to Chris at night when I was putting him to bed. I'm a terrible mother.
:-D
Also, Jim Keltner is a plus![/QUOTE]
I used to sing Tweeter and the Monkey Man to Chris at night when I was putting him to bed. I'm a terrible mother.
:-D
I don't know, Janet. That sounds like ten 'awesome mother' points to me! ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Your taste is beyond all hope and you should do best to give it a decent burial.
But it'd help if you started assessing songs and artists by their quality, and not by whether they were recorded in "five minutes" (that was, by the way, something you might have heard of called a 'figure of speech'. The song was written during a morning recording session, and probably got some two hours of work) or hours of tedious stressing about whether or not to include yet another track of harpsichord.
You are clearly not capable of seeing the qualities in songs that do not fit your rather narrow-minded definition of "good". Judging by your previous posts, all "good songs" (in your humble opinion) can be summed up in "Richly arranged I-IV-Vs".[/QUOTE]Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?
I don't think so.
I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.
In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.
Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.
If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.
On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?
You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.
Alright, I can say I am everything I'd like to be, if I don't prove it... those "people say I'm great" excuses are kinda useless.
Does anybody agree with moi?
But it'd help if you started assessing songs and artists by their quality, and not by whether they were recorded in "five minutes" (that was, by the way, something you might have heard of called a 'figure of speech'. The song was written during a morning recording session, and probably got some two hours of work) or hours of tedious stressing about whether or not to include yet another track of harpsichord.
You are clearly not capable of seeing the qualities in songs that do not fit your rather narrow-minded definition of "good". Judging by your previous posts, all "good songs" (in your humble opinion) can be summed up in "Richly arranged I-IV-Vs".[/QUOTE]Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?
I don't think so.
I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.
In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.
Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.
If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.
On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?
You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.
Alright, I can say I am everything I'd like to be, if I don't prove it... those "people say I'm great" excuses are kinda useless.
Does anybody agree with moi?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?[/QUOTE]
Well, no, it doesn't *matter*, however, it will never be original, as I-IV-Vs have been played to death. The least you'd need to to was turn it into a modal composition to achieve the least bit of originality. And originality is the most important thing about music, IMHO. Recording something that's been done before is a waste of time and space.
[QUOTE]I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.[/QUOTE]
YOU dragged in complexity, not me. I like simple songs as much as complex songs, so long as they are well-written. You might know that melodies are derived from the harmonic structure of the song (chordal tones, or avoiding of chordal tones, embellished with passing notes), or the other way around. Either way, it is not possible to separate the chords and the melody in a song. Unless one is creating atonal music (bad term, btw, as it is tonal just the same), it is therefore necessary to stick to one of only a few keys that can be used over a chord progression, or to stick to one of only a couple of chord-progressions that can be fitted to a melody. Therefore, if you stick to the same progression over and over again, the number of possible melodies is (when we take out passing tones, which have no function other than connecting the core notes) very much limited.
[QUOTE]In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.[/QUOTE]
Read the above.
[QUOTE]Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.[/QUOTE]
You will see that it does. Most melodies are based around important chordal tones, with only the passing tones really varying. Again, see the above.
[QUOTE]If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.[/QUOTE]
You forgot about lyrics, which is the one part where a I-IV-V standard song can redeem itself artistically. However, if you abide by the rules you stated yourself above, you should like the Wilburys. Plus, Dylan only sings on a limited number of songs.
[QUOTE]On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?[/QUOTE]
I've posted music here before; also, I've never claimed to be a genius, as I'm not. I am, however, a good student, because I am MOTIVATED to LEARN. Apart from that, you should have been able to derive that I am quite capable of handling myself musically from the more technical explanations I have given in the past and still do. But by all means, if you wish to question me, go right ahead. I'm mail-able.
[QUOTE]You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to forgive you that remark just this once. JUST THIS ONCE.
[QUOTE]Alright, I can say I am everything I'd like to be, if I don'
Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?[/QUOTE]
Well, no, it doesn't *matter*, however, it will never be original, as I-IV-Vs have been played to death. The least you'd need to to was turn it into a modal composition to achieve the least bit of originality. And originality is the most important thing about music, IMHO. Recording something that's been done before is a waste of time and space.
[QUOTE]I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.[/QUOTE]
YOU dragged in complexity, not me. I like simple songs as much as complex songs, so long as they are well-written. You might know that melodies are derived from the harmonic structure of the song (chordal tones, or avoiding of chordal tones, embellished with passing notes), or the other way around. Either way, it is not possible to separate the chords and the melody in a song. Unless one is creating atonal music (bad term, btw, as it is tonal just the same), it is therefore necessary to stick to one of only a few keys that can be used over a chord progression, or to stick to one of only a couple of chord-progressions that can be fitted to a melody. Therefore, if you stick to the same progression over and over again, the number of possible melodies is (when we take out passing tones, which have no function other than connecting the core notes) very much limited.
[QUOTE]In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.[/QUOTE]
Read the above.
[QUOTE]Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.[/QUOTE]
You will see that it does. Most melodies are based around important chordal tones, with only the passing tones really varying. Again, see the above.
[QUOTE]If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.[/QUOTE]
You forgot about lyrics, which is the one part where a I-IV-V standard song can redeem itself artistically. However, if you abide by the rules you stated yourself above, you should like the Wilburys. Plus, Dylan only sings on a limited number of songs.
[QUOTE]On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?[/QUOTE]
I've posted music here before; also, I've never claimed to be a genius, as I'm not. I am, however, a good student, because I am MOTIVATED to LEARN. Apart from that, you should have been able to derive that I am quite capable of handling myself musically from the more technical explanations I have given in the past and still do. But by all means, if you wish to question me, go right ahead. I'm mail-able.
[QUOTE]You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to forgive you that remark just this once. JUST THIS ONCE.
[QUOTE]Alright, I can say I am everything I'd like to be, if I don'
It could be symptomatic of my musical immaturity that I don't like listening to Tom Petty's voice. Maybe I'll 'learn to appreciate it' with time?? Heh. In any event - I could be peculiar for preferring the solo efforts from the members of the Traveling Wilburys at around that time.
Well, that brings us back to the work that Brian and Roger are now doing with Paul. I think that when musicians and song writers are already established and have their own sound, maybe it isn't always a good idea to mix their styles with another musician. Especially in the same song (i.e., this is the George part, and this is the Roy part - you can clearly tell who wrote which parts of the song). It kind of reminds me of the "We Are the World" recording (everyone trying to sound so much like themselves - ha).
And because I am not a music student or expert, I just have to go by what my instincts tell me.
That said, I love the part where Roy Orbison sings, "I'm so tired of being lonely..."
And because I am not a music student or expert, I just have to go by what my instincts tell me.
That said, I love the part where Roy Orbison sings, "I'm so tired of being lonely..."
Brian May is a Traveling Wilbury, but Robbie Williams ain't
Aretha Franklin's a Wilbury, but Britney ain't
Roy Orbison & George Harrison still travel, but they mainly stay at home now
"Tweeter and the monkey man were hard up for cash, so they stayed up all night sellin' cocaine an' hash" gotta love it!!!
Aretha Franklin's a Wilbury, but Britney ain't
Roy Orbison & George Harrison still travel, but they mainly stay at home now
"Tweeter and the monkey man were hard up for cash, so they stayed up all night sellin' cocaine an' hash" gotta love it!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?[/QUOTE]
Well, no, it doesn't *matter*, however, it will never be original, as I-IV-Vs have been played to death. The least you'd need to to was turn it into a modal composition to achieve the least bit of originality. And originality is the most important thing about music, IMHO. Recording something that's been done before is a waste of time and space.
[QUOTE]I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.[/QUOTE]
YOU dragged in complexity, not me. I like simple songs as much as complex songs, so long as they are well-written. You might know that melodies are derived from the harmonic structure of the song (chordal tones, or avoiding of chordal tones, embellished with passing notes), or the other way around. Either way, it is not possible to separate the chords and the melody in a song. Unless one is creating atonal music (bad term, btw, as it is tonal just the same), it is therefore necessary to stick to one of only a few keys that can be used over a chord progression, or to stick to one of only a couple of chord-progressions that can be fitted to a melody. Therefore, if you stick to the same progression over and over again, the number of possible melodies is (when we take out passing tones, which have no function other than connecting the core notes) very much limited.
[QUOTE]In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.[/QUOTE]
Read the above.
[QUOTE]Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.[/QUOTE]
You will see that it does. Most melodies are based around important chordal tones, with only the passing tones really varying. Again, see the above.
[QUOTE]If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.[/QUOTE]
You forgot about lyrics, which is the one part where a I-IV-V standard song can redeem itself artistically. However, if you abide by the rules you stated yourself above, you should like the Wilburys. Plus, Dylan only sings on a limited number of songs.
[QUOTE]On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?[/QUOTE]
I've posted music here before; also, I've never claimed to be a genius, as I'm not. I am, however, a good student, because I am MOTIVATED to LEARN. Apart from that, you should have been able to derive that I am quite capable of handling myself musically from the more technical explanations I have given in the past and still do. But by all means, if you wish to question me, go right ahead. I'm mail-able.
[QUOTE]You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to forgive you that remark just
Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?[/QUOTE]
Well, no, it doesn't *matter*, however, it will never be original, as I-IV-Vs have been played to death. The least you'd need to to was turn it into a modal composition to achieve the least bit of originality. And originality is the most important thing about music, IMHO. Recording something that's been done before is a waste of time and space.
[QUOTE]I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.[/QUOTE]
YOU dragged in complexity, not me. I like simple songs as much as complex songs, so long as they are well-written. You might know that melodies are derived from the harmonic structure of the song (chordal tones, or avoiding of chordal tones, embellished with passing notes), or the other way around. Either way, it is not possible to separate the chords and the melody in a song. Unless one is creating atonal music (bad term, btw, as it is tonal just the same), it is therefore necessary to stick to one of only a few keys that can be used over a chord progression, or to stick to one of only a couple of chord-progressions that can be fitted to a melody. Therefore, if you stick to the same progression over and over again, the number of possible melodies is (when we take out passing tones, which have no function other than connecting the core notes) very much limited.
[QUOTE]In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.[/QUOTE]
Read the above.
[QUOTE]Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.[/QUOTE]
You will see that it does. Most melodies are based around important chordal tones, with only the passing tones really varying. Again, see the above.
[QUOTE]If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.[/QUOTE]
You forgot about lyrics, which is the one part where a I-IV-V standard song can redeem itself artistically. However, if you abide by the rules you stated yourself above, you should like the Wilburys. Plus, Dylan only sings on a limited number of songs.
[QUOTE]On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?[/QUOTE]
I've posted music here before; also, I've never claimed to be a genius, as I'm not. I am, however, a good student, because I am MOTIVATED to LEARN. Apart from that, you should have been able to derive that I am quite capable of handling myself musically from the more technical explanations I have given in the past and still do. But by all means, if you wish to question me, go right ahead. I'm mail-able.
[QUOTE]You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to forgive you that remark just
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It is a waste of time if you can't manage to make an original melody. Not all the combination have been tried before, some things are still unique without using more than 4 chords. It's the creation not the knowledge. Knowledge only gives you the tools, if you can't write a (good) song... you won't write a good song, no matter how complex harmonically or rhythmically it could be.[/QUOTE]
The point I was making, was that it is DIFFICULT to remain original when using standard chord-progressions. Would atonality have arisen if there was still lots of uncleared ground in tonal music? Or minimalism? Musique concrete?
[QUOTE]The number of notes you can use in a melody over a chord progression is just the number of notes of the scale you're using.[/QUOTE]
And beyond, yes, but if you are writing a pop song? No. You will have to use dissonant tones very sparingly.
[QUOTE]If you're gonna stick to 1º's, 3º's and 5º's it is your problem.[/QUOTE]
True as that might be, it is the way a pop-song works. I don't do pop-songs for exactly that reason.
[QUOTE]A voice and and instrument can mix together very well regardless of the intervals they create.[/QUOTE]
*Can* yes, but that does not make it necessarily so. Again, in popular idiom the notes of the appropriate pentatonic scale are usually the only ones employed as central tones in a melody.
[QUOTE]You can add the minor third of any major chord and you might not even notice (as something alike happens during the middle slow section of Nights On Broadway by the Bee Gees). So you can also use sixths, sevenths, ninths over a triad or whatever takes your fancy.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and what would they be? Chord extensions perhaps?
[QUOTE]There's the genius, creating things that others can't create. If nobody can come up with a melody that creates other kind of tensions over a common chord progression other than the very ones that are always used... well, it's their problem.[/QUOTE]
You wish to tell me that popular idiom will spawn ORIGINALITY? It hasn't for a century!
[QUOTE]It won't be the first time we hear something weird. "Worse" things have been done in the past and some of them proved to work out quite well.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we call that "avant-garde", which is what I concern myself with, but which the typical pop-musician (take, for instance, the Gallagher-brothers) have nothing but contempt for.
[QUOTE]As I said, the Travelling Morons are one of the most primitive bands I've ever heard.[/QUOTE]
Yet you list the Bee Gees earlier in your post? I'm glad I don't inhabit your universe!
[QUOTE]I don't wanna ask you anything, I don't wanna talk to you either. Did you upload your music? Well, upload it again.[/QUOTE]
When I get round to it, I'll upload something new. I'm having a jam-session tomorrow, so if something nice comes up, I might be kind enough to let you hear. Just remember that I owe you *nothing*.
The point I was making, was that it is DIFFICULT to remain original when using standard chord-progressions. Would atonality have arisen if there was still lots of uncleared ground in tonal music? Or minimalism? Musique concrete?
[QUOTE]The number of notes you can use in a melody over a chord progression is just the number of notes of the scale you're using.[/QUOTE]
And beyond, yes, but if you are writing a pop song? No. You will have to use dissonant tones very sparingly.
[QUOTE]If you're gonna stick to 1º's, 3º's and 5º's it is your problem.[/QUOTE]
True as that might be, it is the way a pop-song works. I don't do pop-songs for exactly that reason.
[QUOTE]A voice and and instrument can mix together very well regardless of the intervals they create.[/QUOTE]
*Can* yes, but that does not make it necessarily so. Again, in popular idiom the notes of the appropriate pentatonic scale are usually the only ones employed as central tones in a melody.
[QUOTE]You can add the minor third of any major chord and you might not even notice (as something alike happens during the middle slow section of Nights On Broadway by the Bee Gees). So you can also use sixths, sevenths, ninths over a triad or whatever takes your fancy.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and what would they be? Chord extensions perhaps?
[QUOTE]There's the genius, creating things that others can't create. If nobody can come up with a melody that creates other kind of tensions over a common chord progression other than the very ones that are always used... well, it's their problem.[/QUOTE]
You wish to tell me that popular idiom will spawn ORIGINALITY? It hasn't for a century!
[QUOTE]It won't be the first time we hear something weird. "Worse" things have been done in the past and some of them proved to work out quite well.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we call that "avant-garde", which is what I concern myself with, but which the typical pop-musician (take, for instance, the Gallagher-brothers) have nothing but contempt for.
[QUOTE]As I said, the Travelling Morons are one of the most primitive bands I've ever heard.[/QUOTE]
Yet you list the Bee Gees earlier in your post? I'm glad I don't inhabit your universe!
[QUOTE]I don't wanna ask you anything, I don't wanna talk to you either. Did you upload your music? Well, upload it again.[/QUOTE]
When I get round to it, I'll upload something new. I'm having a jam-session tomorrow, so if something nice comes up, I might be kind enough to let you hear. Just remember that I owe you *nothing*.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
When I get round to it, I'll upload something new. I'm having a jam-session tomorrow, so if something nice comes up, I might be kind enough to let you hear. Just remember that I owe you *nothing*.[/QUOTE]
It certainly would interest me, TQ. You see, if I'm having a jam session it's mostly with another guitarist (I (IF) haven't (yet) got a band, I'm mostly solo) who hasn't got any musical theoretical knowledge (and to be honest, not a lot of skill..). So our jams really are just long pieces of literally fiddling about (mostly I'm doing just a boring/simple bass riff with some variations, or a naively simple chord progression on piano, as I'm the one with the most sense of rhythm and theoretical knowledge. That is not arrogance or anything, as the guitarist would agree with me on this. He just fiddles out some solos, which have almost always nothing to do with what I do. It's fun, sure is, but I want to get more out of it..)
So I would certainly like to hear how other ones, read musicians with a certain degree of theoretical knowledge, are managing it.
When I get round to it, I'll upload something new. I'm having a jam-session tomorrow, so if something nice comes up, I might be kind enough to let you hear. Just remember that I owe you *nothing*.[/QUOTE]
It certainly would interest me, TQ. You see, if I'm having a jam session it's mostly with another guitarist (I (IF) haven't (yet) got a band, I'm mostly solo) who hasn't got any musical theoretical knowledge (and to be honest, not a lot of skill..). So our jams really are just long pieces of literally fiddling about (mostly I'm doing just a boring/simple bass riff with some variations, or a naively simple chord progression on piano, as I'm the one with the most sense of rhythm and theoretical knowledge. That is not arrogance or anything, as the guitarist would agree with me on this. He just fiddles out some solos, which have almost always nothing to do with what I do. It's fun, sure is, but I want to get more out of it..)
So I would certainly like to hear how other ones, read musicians with a certain degree of theoretical knowledge, are managing it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
That said, I love the part where Roy Orbison sings[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
That said, I love the part where Roy Orbison sings[/QUOTE]
Exactly.