"Eye-roller licks" - Does anyone else experience listening fatigue with often repeated patterns?

General Music Discussion
#41

Of course, it also works the opposite way - constantly listening to technically and/or harmonically complex music makes you appreciate how good the ‘cliché’ stuff is, given the performance. Listening to Shawn Lane or some hardcore Jazz fusion cats for any length of time, makes me appreciate Chuck Berry and Angus Young even more!

Complexity overkill is a thing and probably the reason I don’t get on with some players. Holdsworth being a prime example for me personally - He is technically amazing and his note choice and phrasing is very unique. I can listen to almost any 3 second snippet of his music and hear some really cool stuff some of the best stuff I have heard maybe, but if I listen to it as a whole piece, I struggle - it doesn’t do it for me - I just don’t get it. Of course, this is my problem not his! Lol!

I think that the amount of eye rolling that occurs is also dependant on how the lick is used - the artistic intent and function. The “Yngwie” pattern - 5-2-4-5-4-2 as described in the OP for example- if you use that pattern repeatedly to follow say a classical chord progression, then I’ll likely eye roll. However, if used briefly (i.e. not all the way up/down the neck) as a way to transition from one interesting lick/idea to another, like a flurry of notes, then it serves its purpose well and there is no eye roll.

2 Likes
#42

LOL. So true! Though it was fun hearing Akle (I think that was his name) posting his mixes and blowing everyone’s mind with how good they were.

1 Like
#43

Agreed. I have a new found appreciation of AC/DC. Setting the metronome to 80bpm and trying to lock in the groove, with all of their syncopated lines; that space is really hard for me. But, playing along to them for half an hour, then switching back to Paul Gilbert licks, my timing is SO much better.

1 Like
#44

Malcolm’s parts are deceptively quite a workout!

#45

This is a really interesting subject and to each his own. But my nuclear hot take is this:

Originality is overrated. And playing guitar to impress guitar nerds is a dead-end road.

1 Like
#46

I believe that this is the first time I have ever heard this opinion. I spent a few minutes reflecting on this. Did you mean under-rated? And if not, I’m interested to hear why. It would seem that originality should be what we’re all trying to reach, unless we’re trying to subsume ourselves in some greater community or expression (e.g., playing Bach, etc.). (Sorry if off-topic, this just seemed so contrary!)

#47

I’m appreciative to hear, and intrigued by, your nuclear take!

In regards to “Originally is overrated” - are you essentially saying, play these licks regardless of how many people play them, if you like them? I can totally agree with that take, just not my thing for me personally.

And in regards to “playing to impress guitar nerds” - I hope that didn’t come across as my goal. I just want to reach a point in my playing where it represents what I personally have to say, and that means not regurgitating patterns and licks that I didn’t come up with

#48

I actually agree with you on this. I guess this is why I find players who tend to not use these kind of pattern based licks more interesting. I’m thinking about players such as Jeff Kollman, Warren DiMartini, Michael Schenker, Jonathan Kreisberg, Marty Friedman, Nuno Bettencourt…

1 Like
#49

I’ve already forgotten what I wrote in my posts here, but I battle this very sentiment every few days.

Fair warning, this post may be of no consequence :weary:

I think most of us here started guitar a lot later in life, and we all at some point came to the conclusion that mechanical dexterity was a huge part of being able to explore and express. We have our preferences and they tend to not only be virtuoso players but also virtuoso composers.

After three or four years of mechanical playing, that is playing other material without really digesting the musical devices used by our “mentors” I feel I’ve painted my self into a corner, and now the only way out is concentrating on the musical devices and opening up the instrument for creative exploration with the ultimate goal to find our own voice. My estimate is it’ll take another two years at least of concentrated effort to achieve some understanding of the basis devices so as to follow the chords and key modulations of someone like Bach.

It seems musicians of the baroque era had the kind of understanding that taps into an infinite depth of creativity with an endless supply of intelligent mechanics. There does not seem to be a linear path to this knowledge except through rigour of the rudiments, which seems like climbing a mountain if you try to stick to the path. This rite of passage I guess is very personal as it implies deep learning which is different for everybody. Having a good teacher is one thing, but that ship may have sailed for a lot of us.

I still feel there’s something to learning the basic devices with the same bloody-minded approach I’ve done ( in my experience ) with all the Yngwie stuff. Bach’s catalogue is vast and one can pick anything and try to reverse engineer it into musical component devices that we can use as tools. This is going to take some serious discipline I suspect, I’m hoping at some point such devices can be utilized in a mechanical non-conscious way as we do with the patterns we’ve internalised.

I’d love to be in the back seat along for the ride and make music spontaneously. I feel a fork in the road ahead for me, I have to be brave and take the path I’ve always been afraid of. It’s seductive and easy to go the route of imitation, I hope I can take the long rough road; who knows maybe a few miles in it turns out to be quite pleasant, I think of it like object-oriented design, once you have a few primary devices in the pocket, further abstraction is just a matter of repurposing. May just be a fantasy, who knows, as of yet :slight_smile:

1 Like
#50

Man, this goes hand in hand with another post I just made, about the physicality of playing and how that ultimately impacts note choice.

I suppose I slightly differ from your opinion that the baroque era had an infinite depth of creativity. While I do believe this era of music was insanely creative, and had a level of quality and depth that may never be replicated, when I studied this music I found it to have qualities and literal rules that would prevent some of my favorite music from existing.

In music school we learned these rules, such as: never use parallel fifths, contrary motion is always preferable, you must not have a tritone when spacing intervals save for a few deliberate cases, never leap more than a 6th unless it’s an octave, key changes must be led to by certain chords, etc. there is a whole library of these rules that come from almost exclusively Bach’s catalogue (might be wrong on that (as well as a few of these rules, it’s been awhile) but he certainly is responsible for a bunch). These rules were either made by Bach, or came from studying and analyzing music like his.

I guess just setting rules in the first place is contrary to my idea of limitless creativity. And I’m sure these composers broke them now and then when they saw fit. And ultimately, these rules were made to avoid sounding “bad”. I do believe they make sense; when shown examples of deliberate rule breaking for the sake of education, I did agree they sounded pretty bad. Idk if this is one of “those” rules but for instance, having a melody resolve and sustain on the fourth while on the tonic chord, in a major key, sounds almost objectively terrible.

But I’m sure Bach or a Bach student would have a heart attack if they did a proper musical analysis of songs from Underoath, Humanity’s Last Breath, Periphery, Bon Iver, Glass Animals, etc. which are five of my all time favorite bands (off the top of my head- a panic chord used in an Underoath song would never happen in a baroque song). Maybe I’m wrong and it checks out, I’d have to further my education and do an analysis lol.

Since there are things that to me sound objectively good and bad (i guess that’s kind of an oxymoron, but I didn’t want to use subjective. Just to drive home that I can’t understand how anyone could think some of these things sound good e.g. the major 4th example) I think that the way to go is to learn the rule book, and then throw it out the window. Maximize your knowledge and understanding of music, rhythm melody and harmony, and then set the rules aside and write whatever the hell you want to. That way you know what you’re doing, and are writing straight from the heart. In my mind, good music is whatever music makes your brain release dopamine, and meticulously following a set of rules is only limiting potential.

Wow, this turned into a really long post replying only to one aspect of your comment. I gotta learn to be more concise lol

#51

My understanding was that these ‘rules’ were the result of the analysis of the works of Bach (and similar composers). Consistencies existed to such an extent that they were formally documented as general foundations for all western music. That was what my theory teacher said when I asked him anyway lol! I was getting tired of all the red ink he was putting on my homework lol!

To me, it isn’t so much about being limited as it is about sounding idiomatic of the period. Wanna sound baroque when writing for a choir? Don’t use parallel 5ths. Wanna write a guitar piece that sounds like rock? You’ll probably need to use lots of parallel 5ths (i.e. power chords) :slight_smile:

If you figure out how to be concise, let me know. I wish I could express everything in my mind with just a few sentences. I just can’t

#52

“I apologize for such a long letter - I didn’t have time to write a short one.” — Mark Twain

3 Likes
#53

I’m right with you there! you probably just missed this sentence in my massive wall of text

1 Like
#54

Also at music school, these rules applied to us across the board. Any piece of music written had points knocked off for breaking them, for the most part

#55

Same here. In hindsight it was good training. I was a composition major and the ‘rules’ came in handy when it came time to score for an orchestra.

1 Like
#56

Especially an orchestra! Dealing with that many instruments it’s easy for things to get messy quick if you’re not quite sure how to manage the instruments.

I really wish I remembered them better, I want to start adding orchestral elements to my metal songs and I’m worried they won’t sound up to par. I suppose I can always reeducate myself, but that takes a level of discipline I’m not sure I have.

btw, are you a berklee grad?

#57

lol! Nowhere near it. I’m not sure if I should be insulted or flattered haha. I took private classical guitar lessons for about 6 months with an instructor that went on to become the chair of the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore MD. They say they are world renowned, but I don’t know…:slight_smile: Our agenda was to get me ready for the Peabody auditions, which was a tall order considering I hadn’t played any classical guitar prior to studying with him. For some reason I thought you could just go there and learn…“music” and it didn’t need to be classical per se. In my defense, this was before the internet lol. Shame on me either way.

Anyway, after realizing I’d never get a scholarship I enrolled in a private college called Western Maryland who at least has the honesty to not claim it is world renowned. They changed their name to McDaniel College during my stay so I always joke and say I have 2 Bachelor’s degrees. (they gave everyone 2 diplomas since some people are just so obsessed with their Alma Mater and couldn’t bear to have a diploma that said “McDaniel” when they’d spent 3 years in a Wester Maryland fraternity). There I studied classical guitar and majored in music theory and composition. I did a little jazz too, but most of the education was from a classical standpoint. If I could have done it all over again, I would have minored in music…or less (maybe just taken private theory/composition classes?) and majored in computer science.

To stay on topic, in case anyone else hasn’t mentioned it (and sorry if they have and I’m just repeating it) my ‘eye roller’ lick I’ve had enough of is…all the licks in the Freebird solo :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

1 Like
#58

Ha, I can say that because I don’t know the rules yet.

I totally agree, but in my case I’m yet to unlock this level of mage. My ears are good but it doesn’t mean much yet. I have no idea why something sounds good to me yet. I have to develop the vocabulary. I always think it the teg Greene baroque videos, I’m in awe og that man.

Very true, Bach was discovered 150 years after his death! Till then he was a nobody.

Very well put. To conjure a vibe on demand is a a mystery to me still, you guys are so blessed, I’m motivated and frustrated at the same time. It’s great to know this forum can be relied on for a diverse knowledge base.

That’s just profound man, everytime I hear a quote from him I feel I need to o read him more.

As an outsider I’m envious of the training you went through.

Its sounds like what a mix engineer would do, sort out the spectrum into coherent harmony. Worthy knowledge.

Such a fantastic skill to have.

We have the opposite problem :joy:

That’s up there with the son that shall not be named.

I love the direction this threat went in, gives me hope and I’m grateful to meet folks as fine as yourselves.

2 Likes
#59

kinda how I feel about berklee lol. But probably that’s more about what that school was to me personally; others have been ability to really milk the school for all the resources it provides. For me, I found it to be pretty overrated, I was unimpressed with the level of musicianship of some of the students they let in. Like for instance from what you’ve told me, you would be accepted no problem.
But yeah I ended up leaving after 2.5 years, and majored in mechanical engineering at my home state’s university

1 Like
#60

Yeah, I was being very tongue in cheek. Same with my comment about not being sure if I should feel insulted or flattered when you asked if I was a Berklee grad lol! I’d feel awful if a Berklee grad read that and got offended. I truly did not intend to knock music school. It was just a really silly and sarcastic comment and I only said that because I’ve personally spoken with several big name music school grads who came away with the experience that their schools were truly “just a name”. Plus like you said, they made comments about the level of students they let in. Though, what’s worse, a school who lets in anyone and gives them the opportunity to progress, or a school who only lets in students so good that they really don’t have much to gain from instruction???

At any rate, anyone who’s gone through music school (or chose to stop, like you), whether big name or not, should feel proud and get the most out of the experience. There are great things to be learned from instruction at that level. What’s more exciting, all that info that I paid a fortune for is now available for free!!! You just have to know what to Google for. Exciting times!

Like many things, you get out what you put in. Which I think is in line with what you said here:

A big name school probably has the advantage of a network. I think it’s universally accepted that it’s not necessarily what you know but who you know. Maybe that’s why my music career never took off and I had to switch to software for a living - the lack of making good contacts in the industry. Maybe it’s because I suck and my band sucked and it just wasn’t in the cards :slight_smile: Either way I’m so glad things played out the way they did for me. I can still be creative through software (and it pays pretty well lol) and nothing’s stopping me from hacking away at my gee-tars in the basement. Win-win really.

And again to get back on topic, another eye-roller lick. This pentatonic gem:

|--------------------|
|----5-8p5----5-8p5--|
|-7b-------7b--------| repeat over and over a la Free Bird
|--------------------|
|--------------------|
|--------------------|
1 Like