The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Red Hot Chili Peppers Accused Of Plagiarism
Old 9th June 2006
  #181
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater
Kids, this is rock music. Everything has been done before. Get over it.


As a jazz pianist, it's no different in my neck of the woods
Old 9th June 2006
  #182
Lives for gear
 
ArcCirDude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirsten


As a jazz pianist, it's no different in my neck of the woods
Ah, yes... It would seem so. But stay true to the music in your head and stay dedicated. We, as jazz musicians, have the advantage in that we aren't discarded at our first wrinkle, but rather embraced.
Old 9th June 2006
  #183
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Ah, yes... It would seem so. But stay true to the music in your head and stay dedicated. We, a jazz musicians, have the advantage in that we aren't discarded at our first wrinkle, but rather embraced.
Yeah a little. Except that jazz is really pretty conservative - depending on where you are. Europe is different is some places. But if you don't conform to Be-Bop and playing the II-V patterns like they're "supposed to be" played, you're kind of ass out.

As a jazz player I DO, but I've had to learn the hard way. I've had to learn the language just so BEFORE I could spread out. I thought at first that jazz embraced the uncoventional, but it really doesn't.

Yet and still if you can play, you can still have a career in jazz into you 50s and 60s without being a star.

Hijack over.
Old 9th June 2006
  #184
Gear Nut
 

How about Sweet home Alabama? Sympathy for the Devil? Ehm, like exchanging the dominant chord for the seven(th)? Just using the Tonika, Subdominant and the Subdominants subdominant? And gently ignore the need of the Dominant?

Sometimes I think of the sub's sub like an "open" dominant. The dominant in major is (almost) always striving up to the tonika, which makes it kind of predictable... But the sub's sub, on the other hand, leaves more possibilities, I think.

I, for one, LOVE the minor dominant in a major key. (Think the chorus of Suede's Trash, fex). The minor third can go to lots of places (more open) then the major third, which (almost) always wants to sneak up to the ground note (root note? whatever you call it).

In other words: To my ears, a major key can need the cooling factor of a sub's sub, or a minor dominant. Don't you agree?
Old 9th June 2006
  #185
Lives for gear
 

just do some roman numeral style on some beatles tunes. they use all this stuff without even knowing it.

mccartney wouldn't know a sub of a sub to save his life....but he certainly can use one.
Old 11th June 2006
  #186
I think the Judge threw it out already, stating "There are only 8 real notes in rock and roll music"... It's hard to write songs, and name bands for that matter.
Old 11th June 2006
  #187
Gear Head
 

There was an interview w/ John and Chad talking about this song. John was saying he had been listening to a lot of old school hip hop and wanted that Wu Tang boom boom bap beat. He then went on to say that when he put the chords over the beat it sounded like "Sweet Home Alabama". Point being, the band realizes the song is nothing ground braking or original and knows it sounds like a hundred other songs.
Old 11th June 2006
  #188
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo Jorgen
How about Sweet home Alabama? Sympathy for the Devil? Ehm, like exchanging the dominant chord for the seven(th)? Just using the Tonika, Subdominant and the Subdominants subdominant? And gently ignore the need of the Dominant?

Sometimes I think of the sub's sub like an "open" dominant. The dominant in major is (almost) always striving up to the tonika, which makes it kind of predictable... But the sub's sub, on the other hand, leaves more possibilities, I think.

I, for one, LOVE the minor dominant in a major key. (Think the chorus of Suede's Trash, fex). The minor third can go to lots of places (more open) then the major third, which (almost) always wants to sneak up to the ground note (root note? whatever you call it).

In other words: To my ears, a major key can need the cooling factor of a sub's sub, or a minor dominant. Don't you agree?
I enjoy subs with turkey and swiss.
Old 12th June 2006
  #189
Lives for gear
 
lordnielson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NyquistFilter
I enjoy subs with turkey and swiss.

Mainly for wednesday soirees, right after a clean uppercut in the nads.
Old 12th June 2006
  #190
Lives for gear
 
ArcCirDude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordnielson
Mainly for wednesday soirees, right after a clean uppercut in the nads.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Old 12th June 2006
  #191
Lives for gear
 
ArcCirDude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo Jorgen
How about Sweet home Alabama? Sympathy for the Devil? Ehm, like exchanging the dominant chord for the seven(th)? Just using the Tonika, Subdominant and the Subdominants subdominant? And gently ignore the need of the Dominant?

Sometimes I think of the sub's sub like an "open" dominant. The dominant in major is (almost) always striving up to the tonika, which makes it kind of predictable... But the sub's sub, on the other hand, leaves more possibilities, I think.

I, for one, LOVE the minor dominant in a major key. (Think the chorus of Suede's Trash, fex). The minor third can go to lots of places (more open) then the major third, which (almost) always wants to sneak up to the ground note (root note? whatever you call it).

In other words: To my ears, a major key can need the cooling factor of a sub's sub, or a minor dominant. Don't you agree?
Yeah, it's cool to take the Wagnerian approach and deceive the listeners ear. By the way, that sneaky major third on the dominant is the "leading tone" (ledetonen). And in English, we use "root" or "tonic" for the "grunntone". (Sorry if it's different in Svensk, but I'm sure it's close to the Norsk.)
Old 12th June 2006
  #192
Gear Addict
 
Branislav's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye
we're talking about a bunch of stoned guys in a garage with virtually ZERO musical ability and BARELY ANY musical skill.
Isn't that (and the other thing) what rock's all about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye
WHO GIVES A F&CK ??
Exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye
keep on rockin'
Yeah, whatever
Old 12th June 2006
  #193
Gear Nut
 

Hey, thanks for explaining the proper English terminology. Will try to remember them for future use. I guess svenska and norsk isn't that different from each other.

Wagner, wow! Maybe that's what rock needs today. Some serious high profile art without any excuses! No "Oh, it's just a little thing I whipped up, the performance is so-so, and the mix, well, you know, nothing special etc etc".

Stop being humble. It might do you some good. Like David Byrne (almost) said.
Old 12th June 2006
  #194
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo Jorgen
How about Sweet home Alabama? Sympathy for the Devil? Ehm, like exchanging the dominant chord for the seven(th)? Just using the Tonika, Subdominant and the Subdominants subdominant? And gently ignore the need of the Dominant?

Sometimes I think of the sub's sub like an "open" dominant. The dominant in major is (almost) always striving up to the tonika, which makes it kind of predictable... But the sub's sub, on the other hand, leaves more possibilities, I think.

I, for one, LOVE the minor dominant in a major key. (Think the chorus of Suede's Trash, fex). The minor third can go to lots of places (more open) then the major third, which (almost) always wants to sneak up to the ground note (root note? whatever you call it).

In other words: To my ears, a major key can need the cooling factor of a sub's sub, or a minor dominant. Don't you agree?
I don't agree because I think it boils down to how you write material from the ground up rather than from the generic chord type down. in other words, I don't think these terms have all that much meaning outside of concrete examples.

It's like saying "don't you just love adjectives? And adding an adverb to a sentence with adjectives is even better."

These terms are like musical parts of speech, but in the abstract seem a little silly -

Just as you can have millions of sentences, good and bad, with and without adverbs, the same could be said of generic chords in the abstract as well: you can generate millions of songs, good and bad, with variations of tonics/dominants/subdominants.

The devil, the beauty, and the uniqueness is in the details.

My .02.

-matt
Old 12th June 2006
  #195
Lives for gear
 
ArcCirDude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiMattMatt
Just as you can have millions of sentences, good and bad, with and without adverbs, the same could be said of generic chords in the abstract as well: you can generate millions of songs, good and bad, with variations of tonics/dominants/subdominants.

The devil, the beauty, and the uniqueness is in the details.

My .02.

-matt
My musical sentence variations using only tonic, dominant and sub-dominant...

See the dog.
The dog see.
Dog the see.
See dog the.

Yes, the devil, beauty, and uniqueness IS in the details.....

Let me explain....

If "See" is the V (dominant), "the" is IV (sub-dominant) and "dog" is I, "See the dog" is "Sweet Home Alabama". With me?
If we change the third on the dominant, the leading tone, to a minor, it's a whole different ball game. "See" is now spelled "sea".
So, our second example, "The dog see", changes from a lame ebonics statement to "The Dog Sea", something entirely different and unique.
Dig?

I thought I killed this thread a long time ago....
Old 12th June 2006
  #196
Gear Addict
 
wildstar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dntknowsht
How about this one? Green Day's American Idiot, has at least 20 incidents of "hey that part's from *fill in the blank*. The whole record sounds like they just submitted their favorite rock & roll riffs and pieced together songs out of them. Great record though, IMO.
No kidding. They do a great 20-second cover of "Summer of '69". I forget where on the album... But it's the best 20 seconds on the whole CD.

I wonder if they knew/cared that they were totally biting Adams' tune?
Old 12th June 2006
  #197
Lives for gear
 

Pop music has regressed a lot in terms of theory. There's always been I IV V tunes but the Beatles. Beach Boys, Zombies etc. were doing some pretty jazzy stuff that deviates far from a standard I IV V tune. When is the last time you heard a V of V on a rock station? Point is, there's not much variation you can do if you are playing 4 or 5 chords. Boston's "More than a Feeling", Green Day's "When I Come Around," Better than Ezra's "Good" and many many many other pop tunes have a I V IV IV chord progression in the chorus or in the case of the latter two, the whole damned song. And those songs are in the same key. Pop music is doomed to repeat itself many many many times.
Old 12th June 2006
  #198
Lives for gear
 

radiohead has taken some very cool new harmonic twists in it's song writing. primary harmonic device seems to be the use of pivot tones. good stuff for stringing together chords that might not normally follow one another.
Old 12th June 2006
  #199
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude
My musical sentence variations using only tonic, dominant and sub-dominant...

See the dog.
The dog see.
Dog the see.
See dog the.

Yes, the devil, beauty, and uniqueness IS in the details.....

Let me explain....

If "See" is the V (dominant), "the" is IV (sub-dominant) and "dog" is I, "See the dog" is "Sweet Home Alabama". With me?
If we change the third on the dominant, the leading tone, to a minor, it's a whole different ball game. "See" is now spelled "sea".
So, our second example, "The dog see", changes from a lame ebonics statement to "The Dog Sea", something entirely different and unique.
Dig?

I thought I killed this thread a long time ago....
I don't mean to sound adversarial, I just don't think that's how people generally compose music. It's the "tail wagging the dog."

There are infinate possibilities using any collection of generic chords. Even simply using a single chord - tonic - there are infinate possibilites.

It's one thing to label a song with these words after the fact - that's what they do in theory classes to help understand them - but it's another to label a song with these words before it even exists. To me, it's like saying "hey - sentences that are adjetive, noun, verb are great, but sentences that are adjective noun noun are even better."

In reality, you could write a million sentences to these rules, some will be good, some will be bad. But to start from the abstract ("today I'm going to write a sentence that is adjective noun verb") is not how writers think. And I dont' think it's how composers think either. In practice, you just become so familiar with the musical syntax of chordal relationships, that you don't think of them by name. You compose at the level of detail - at the level of actual musical stuff, just as writers write at the level of words rather than sentence diagrams.

If you picture the Chili Peppers, for example, just to bring this back OT explicitly, I don't think they heard a chord progression and thought, consciously, to replicate it in the abstract ("hey guys, let's try a dom/subdom/tonic today"). They noodled around with what felt good on their instruments, what sounded good, what sounded familiar (or unfamiliar), what was stylistically compelling, what featured their singing style, and came up with something that was original to some extent and not original to some extent.

-matt
Old 12th June 2006
  #200
Lives for gear
 
ArcCirDude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiMattMatt
I don't mean to sound adversarial, I just don't think that's how people generally compose music. It's the "tail wagging the dog."

There are infinate possibilities using any collection of generic chords. Even simply using a single chord - tonic - there are infinate possibilites.

It's one thing to label a song with these words after the fact - that's what they do in theory classes to help understand them - but it's another to label a song with these words before it even exists. To me, it's like saying "hey - sentences that are adjetive, noun, verb are great, but sentences that are adjective noun noun are even better."

In reality, you could write a million sentences to these rules, some will be good, some will be bad. But to start from the abstract ("today I'm going to write a sentence that is adjective noun verb") is not how writers think. And I dont' think it's how composers think either. In practice, you just become so familiar with the musical syntax of chordal relationships, that you don't think of them by name. You compose at the level of detail - at the level of actual musical stuff, just as writers write at the level of words rather than sentence diagrams.

If you picture the Chili Peppers, for example, just to bring this back OT explicitly, I don't think they heard a chord progression and thought, consciously, to replicate it in the abstract ("hey guys, let's try a dom/subdom/tonic today"). They noodled around with what felt good on their instruments, what sounded good, what sounded familiar (or unfamiliar), what was stylistically compelling, what featured their singing style, and came up with something that was original to some extent and not original to some extent.

-matt
I think the problem here is that Bo Jorgen used theoretical terms to explain his like for a certain sound and not another. He dislikes the standard V (dominant) sound. This does not mean that he uses pure theory when he sits down to compose. Theory has ALWAYS followed art as a way to explain the inexplicable.

But theory has also derailed innovation as when Zarlino's treatise on harmony favored Palistrina's smooth voice leading over Monteverdi's preference of text, thereby influencing the younger generation of Baroque composers who gave us modern functional harmony. Then came the Classical era that favored the I-V-I relationship. And then came the wonderful Romantic composers starting with mid to late Beethoven who dared to be different, to be unique, which brought us back on track again. But I digress...

My point is, you can dress up a I-IV-V progression in many ways, but those ways are limited. When I did the piano bar thing, I used to do a medley of 25 or so tunes from the sixties based on I-IV-V. "Louie, Louie", "Wild Thing", "Twist and Shout", "Summer Lovin", Guantanamera, La Bamba....you get the idea. The **** is getting old. It is old. I think Mozart wrote it in the womb.

I think the reason it "feels good" is that it's so easy to play on guitar. It's the first thing all aspiring guitarists learn. I learned it from a neighbor kid when I was six. Since everyone learns it, it's the first thing that gets played when two school buddies get together for the first time and jam. Problem is, the jam is always in the back of the head. Then one day, dude comes to rehearsal with "somethin' I've been messin' around with...", thinking that he has written something unique because it somehow just "feels" right. But he's been playing that same thing for 10 years! And so has 15.000.000 other guitar students! And audiences dig it because THEY'VE been hearing the same thing their whole lives and anything swaying too far from that I-IV-V is an affront to their sensibilities.

Sigh.... hurray...chile peppers... go, man, go...... sigh.....rock and roll....





PS. I love rock and roll. And a whole lot of other stuff..
Old 12th June 2006
  #201
Lives for gear
 

Check out the chorus to Bon Jovi's "Born to be my Baby" and Lifehouse's "Hanging by a Moment" woops. Almost verbatim melody/chords for several bars.
Old 12th June 2006
  #202
Gear Nut
 
DivideByZero's Avatar
Anthony from RHCP had Mr. Bungle booted off a rather large Australian festival back in 2000 because he thought Mike Patton's other band, Faith No More, was a Peppers rip-off. So whether or not this current accusation of plagarism is valid, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy just to read it.
Old 12th June 2006
  #203
Lives for gear
 
mr.gefell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DivideByZero
Anthony from RHCP had Mr. Bungle booted off a rather large Australian festival back in 2000 because he thought Mike Patton's other band, Faith No More, was a Peppers rip-off. So whether or not this current accusation of plagarism is valid, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy just to read it.
nah..things got cool between mike and the swan, but things started to mess right before the release of californication (dispute over album name) and and it peaked here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCli...alifornication


enjoy!
Old 12th June 2006
  #204
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude

I think the reason it "feels good" is that it's so easy to play on guitar.
I think you have it backwards. The reason it is so easy to play on guitar (and the reason most people learn this first) is because it feels good.

It feels good because of physiology of the inner ear, the brain, and the way our "perception hardware (ear, nerves, brain)" deals with consonace and dissonance.
Old 12th June 2006
  #205
Lives for gear
 
ArcCirDude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitherto
I think you have it backwards. The reason it is so easy to play on guitar (and the reason most people learn this first) is because it feels good.

It feels good because of physiology of the inner ear, the brain, and the way our "perception hardware (ear, nerves, brain)" deals with consonace and dissonance.
Well, I beg to differ. If the "feeling good" of the I-IV-V progression was based solely on the "physiology of the inner ear, the brain, and the way our "perception hardware (ear, nerves, brain)" deals with consonace and dissonance", how can you explain all the culturally diverse musics that lie outside of the European based harmony/melody in which Rock and Roll has it's roots? Perhaps the other 3 billion people that listen to music not rooted in equal temperment don't feel as good as you when they listen their indiginous music as when you listen to "Da Do Ron Ron.
Old 13th June 2006
  #206
Gear Nut
 
DivideByZero's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.gefell
nah..things got cool between mike and the swan, but things started to mess right before the release of californication (dispute over album name) and and it peaked here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCli...alifornication


enjoy!
That's beautiful. And fully warranted. "California" should have been Mr. Bungle's breakthrough album, and while it was an instant cult hit, I think it could have done much better with proper support (and less of Kiedis getting Bungle kicked off of festivals via the unprofessional "if they play, we don't" treatment). To bring this back to the original topic: it's silly to think that Tom Petty was the first to use the chord progression in question; almost as silly as it is to think that there's any similarity between Bungle's brilliant "California" and RHCP's stoned surfer quasi-philosophical drivel about how California looks all glamorous on the outside, but has a seedy underbelly (GREAT CONCEPT; I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ANYTHING LIKE THAT, EVER).
Old 13th June 2006
  #207
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
I think the problem here is that Bo Jorgen used theoretical terms to explain his like for a certain sound and not another. He dislikes the standard V (dominant) sound. This does not mean that he uses pure theory when he sits down to compose. Theory has ALWAYS followed art as a way to explain the inexplicable.
Thanks ArcCirDude. That's about it. Theory is for late-comers, always takes place after the fact. Thanks to theory we can actually speak and write about music. Good thing.

See the dog/The dog sea... This is far out! I like it! I don't understand 100 %, but who needs that? Dear old Anthony Burgess would have smiled. He, for one, regretted that word people didn't care much for phonetics.

And speaking about words: I actually would like to see more nouns in modern rock/pop lyrics. The genre is flooded with "You&Me"-sort-of-lyrics. Everything seems to take place in the mind of the singer, addressing a "you" that he ore she is (mostly) disappointed with. Always some kind of settlement. Or some kind of declaration. Who needs that?

"You think you are do-do-do-do-do
but I just say do-do-do-do-do
so we can do-do-do-do-do-do
nothing to gain do-do-do-do-do
it's always the same do-do-do-do-do-do..."

More nouns! Get rid of those self-absorbed pronouns!fuuck
Old 13th June 2006
  #208
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.gefell
nah..things got cool between mike and the swan, but things started to mess right before the release of californication (dispute over album name) and and it peaked here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCli...alifornication


enjoy!
that is hilarious.

although i kind of like the title "california" more than "californication" for that bungle record.

you can guess which CD gets more play around here. the more interesting and better produced one.
Old 13th June 2006
  #209
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude
I think the problem here is that Bo Jorgen used theoretical terms to explain his like for a certain sound and not another. He dislikes the standard V (dominant) sound. This does not mean that he uses pure theory when he sits down to compose. Theory has ALWAYS followed art as a way to explain the inexplicable.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't even know how you can use pure theory to say what you like and what you don't like. Things like dominant chords are basic musical building blocks, but are personality-free in the abstract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude
But theory has also derailed innovation as when Zarlino's treatise on harmony favored Palistrina's smooth voice leading over Monteverdi's preference of text, thereby influencing the younger generation of Baroque composers who gave us modern functional harmony. Then came the Classical era that favored the I-V-I relationship. And then came the wonderful Romantic composers starting with mid to late Beethoven who dared to be different, to be unique, which brought us back on track again. But I digress...
Zarlino was more of a musical cheerleader than anything else, and I don't think he or any other theorist infected the minds of the composers or derailed anything. The mindset for creating music isn't that kind of zoomed-out-Music-101 view of prevailing chord progressions, it's much more specific and neurotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude
My point is, you can dress up a I-IV-V progression in many ways, but those ways are limited.
Au contraire, my friend. The dressing up is everything! There are virtually infinate realizations of I IV V over the past thousand years, from a measure in a Baroque Mass to a chorus in a death metal anthem. It's how those fundamental pieces of musical DNA are realized that makes the music sound like what it sounds like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude
When I did the piano bar thing, I used to do a medley of 25 or so tunes from the sixties based on I-IV-V. "Louie, Louie", "Wild Thing", "Twist and Shout", "Summer Lovin", Guantanamera, La Bamba....you get the idea. The **** is getting old. It is old. I think Mozart wrote it in the womb.
It's getting old because you are not just limiting the chord progression, you are limiting a number of other musical variables at the same time: the chord progression is played by the same guy on the same piano in the same fundamental style in the same piano bar. So, 25 times later, it's gonna get old. However, those same chords can be realized in 250,000,000 other ways that will sound nothing like a guy playing a medley of songs in a piano bar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude
I think the reason it "feels good" is that it's so easy to play on guitar. It's the first thing all aspiring guitarists learn. I learned it from a neighbor kid when I was six. Since everyone learns it, it's the first thing that gets played when two school buddies get together for the first time and jam. Problem is, the jam is always in the back of the head. Then one day, dude comes to rehearsal with "somethin' I've been messin' around with...", thinking that he has written something unique because it somehow just "feels" right. But he's been playing that same thing for 10 years! And so has 15.000.000 other guitar students! And audiences dig it because THEY'VE been hearing the same thing their whole lives and anything swaying too far from that I-IV-V is an affront to their sensibilities.
that's so true, it's painful!

I think it's actually slightly more true for guitar than keyboard, because the physicality of a guitar lends itself to horizontal sonorities - chords - whereas a keyboard is more inherently contrapuntal. But it's still true for both and why at least when I write, I try and divorce myself from the physicality of my instrument as much as possible (knowing that there's no true divorce).

-matt
Old 13th June 2006
  #210
Lives for gear
 

For GODS SAKE!
Don't get all carried away with music theory when analyzing band like the The Red Hot Chili Peppers!

Their set only had THREE SONGS when they were signed!
Of course they don't have a lot of originality or width to their musicality!
I have several musician friends in my cellphone that play was well as any of them.
Some of them have PLAYED WITH THEM!
I have friends who play better than them.
It isn't about ability.
It shouldn't be infatuation either.

It would be nice if they had something to offer other than loud ass, party music.
I like loud ass, party music and one of the favorite bands I have been associated with played mostly just that. BUT....at least, the songs were fairly original.

The shame is that they are un-careing or un-aware enough to put it out there.
Un-careing is stupid because it will cost them.
George Harrison learned with My Sweet Lord.
He didn't want to give up that money!

Un-aware is just being a dumbass, plain and simple... "uh huh, yeah... I'm a rock musician. I used to do dope, too. Not anymore... I write baddass songs."
Well, it was more "baddass" when Tom Petty recorded it!

Theory and rock music:
I used to try to figure out what speed metal guys were playing when I recorded them because certian riffs sounded kinda' cool to me. I'd have them show me the patterns they were using (I use the word "pattern" on purpose) and there was no scale involved. They were juist playing patterns that sounded kinda' neat when fingered really fast!
In fact, Dimebag Darryl (God rest his soul) pause..............

Darryl was published in a guitar magazine going on and on about "symetrical patterns" where he showed how he used symetrical fingering patterns that involved nothing more than ripping up and down the fretboard using the same pattern over and over. The net result sounds pretty interesting when you add distortion and all of the artifacts that an overdriven GTR can add. With the right attitute it is "fun."

Then again... as you experience more music in your life you should grow as a musician.
If you grow you hunger for more ideas and concepts. While you might still want to hear baddass, party music on occasion you will want to hear other stuff, too.
It's like Carlos Santana said, He doesn't eat spagetti for every meal.

I'd bet that the RHCP fall into the un-educated bunch.

It makes me think of that TV show where Tommy Lee went to college.
He's not a bad drummer... he thought that he was gonna' ace that marching band audition. I felt bad for him. He was about to cry I think. He played in marching bandin highschool, too.

Nah... being a rock star doesn't require much musical ability.
A good manager and an appealing image are WAY more helpfull!

You'd also think that the label or the A&R people would know better...
No, they are not very musically educated either.

I found the clips to be hilarious, but not surprising.

Danny Brown
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump