Yngwie Winds Pickups for Haiti ...

[David Schwab]

eclecticism explained!

(kidding!)

I'm not sure what that means in terms of my quote, but to clarify, I used Sher-wood lacquer on the guitars and basses I built, not on pickups. I don't use lacquer on pickups.

I have never wanted to be a musician; I am a guitarist.

So you use your guitar to row a boat? Or do you play music? If you play music you are a musician.

I'm a musician. I happen to play guitar, bass, keys, sing, etc. Those are all ways to express yourself. I say I'm a bassist, but I could say I'm a guitarist, or singer or that I used to be a tubist and a saxophonist. Those are all musicians. You are too!

[tedmich]

If you play music you are a musician.

hah! I don't play music, I play guitar.

Its so freeing to not play music!

check the video...guitars do NOT have to make music; they're flexible!

[uvacom]

I like Cage better than AC/DC, I also don't consider something like 4′33″ as music.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I think it is. Music isn't just an endless stream of notes with no space in between them. There is composed silence in music, i.e. a rest. If one were to name a meter, a tempo, or a scale for 4'33", it would be difficult to argue against the existence thereof, because the piece contains nothing to preclude any given parameter of music that could be named. It is composed in that it has a defined sound (or lack thereof) for a defined length. And it rarely fails to elicit a response from its audience when it is performed or a recording of it is played.

To me, it is music.

[David Schwab]

hah! I don't play music, I play guitar.

Faulty logic. Does you guitar play notes? Or does it make fart noises? You don't play music on your guitar? You row boats with it, right?

Or you can't play a note and just like having one around for looks?

If you play notes, it's music. Unless you suck, and even then it's BAD music!

[David Schwab]

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I think it is. Music isn't just an endless stream of notes with no space in between them. There is composed silence in music, i.e. a rest. If one were to name a meter, a tempo, or a scale for 4'33", it would be difficult to argue against the existence thereof, because the piece contains nothing to preclude any given parameter of music that could be named. It is composed in that it has a defined sound (or lack thereof) for a defined length. And it rarely fails to elicit a response from its audience when it is performed or a recording of it is played.

To me, it is music.

If not a single note is played, it's not music. It's silence. There wouldn't even be a need to have musicians to perform it. You can have rests and even silence in music, but you have to have some element of music around the rests. Back when I played in orchestras, it wasn't uncommon to sit through 100+ measures of rests. But other people were playing. If you walk into an empty concert hall, do you hear music? Of course not.

Now if one note was played during that 4´33˝, you might be able to call it music. Better examples of minimalism is Brian Eno's Music for Airports.

Bottom line is 4´33˝ was supposed to be a joke.

music |ˈmyoōzik|
noun
1 the art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion : he devoted his life to music.
• the vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way : couples were dancing to the music | baroque music.
• a sound perceived as pleasingly harmonious : the background music of softly lapping water.

silence |ˈsīləns|
noun
complete absence of sound

[uvacom]

If not a single note is played, it's not music. It's silence. There wouldn't even be a need to have musicians to perform it. You can have rests and even silence in music, but you have to have some element of music around the rests. Back when I played in orchestras, it wasn't uncommon to sit through 100+ measures of rests. But other people were playing. If you walk into an empty concert hall, do you hear music? Of course not.

Now if one note was played during that 4´33˝, you might be able to call it music. Better examples of minimalism is Brian Eno's Music for Airports.

Bottom line is 4´33˝ was supposed to be a joke.

Not true! In the book The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life John Cage is quoted to have said ""I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke."

The whole point is that you are supposed to hear the ambient noises around you when 4'33" is performed. There is no real silence. Some of Cage's influence for 4'33" came from visiting and anechoic chamber and discovering that he still heard sound inside it, the sound of his blood circulating, etc.

Anyway, it's okay if you don't regard it as music; clearly the whole point is to challenge the definition of music. But I would posit that if no notes are not music but one note is, then what is really the difference? What sort of information can a single note convey in absence of any others that no notes at all cannot convey equally well? What's the difference? Why set the dividing line at an arbitrary one note? Maybe it takes two notes for music to happen? Besides, no matter what one dictionary says, notes don't make music. Somebody shaking maracas or a tambourine is making a simple sort of music, and there is only rhythm, no harmonic or melodic component at all.

[12Bass]

Wow... from Yngwie to aesthetics.....

Is something art if the artist doesn't do/play/paint anything?

[Possum]

.....

Its called Zen, maybe.

[David Schwab]

Not true! In the book The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life John Cage is quoted to have said ""I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke."

Let's not forget that he said his desire was to "to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be three or four-and-a-half minutes long—those being the standard lengths of 'canned' music and its title will be Silent Prayer. It will open with a single idea which I will attempt to make as seductive as the color and shape and fragrance of a flower. The ending will approach imperceptibility."

It's the emperor's new clothes.

The whole point is that you are supposed to hear the ambient noises around you when 4'33" is performed. There is no real silence. Some of Cage's influence for 4'33" came from visiting and anechoic chamber and discovering that he still heard sound inside it, the sound of his blood circulating, etc.

Well after the point that it was a poke at Muzak, yeah you can say that. But the piece is not responsible for the ambient sounds. You can just as easily go to a public library to experience the same thing.

On a positive note, we all have too much sensory bombardment going on around us all the time. It's nice to spend four and a half minutes sitting in a quiet place.

Anyway, it's okay if you don't regard it as music; clearly the whole point is to challenge the definition of music. But I would posit that if no notes are not music but one note is, then what is really the difference? What sort of information can a single note convey in absence of any others that no notes at all cannot convey equally well? What's the difference? Why set the dividing line at an arbitrary one note? Maybe it takes two notes for music to happen? Besides, no matter what one dictionary says, notes don't make music. Somebody shaking maracas or a tambourine is making a simple sort of music, and there is only rhythm, no harmonic or melodic component at all.

Don't get me wrong, I like experimental music. But music is an assembly of pitch, silence and rhythm, and I don't think four and a half minutes of silence meets that criterion. If it did, we could say that four and a half minutes of white noise is music, or four and a half minutes of random banging on piano keys. But it's still not.

I'm also down on so-called "art" that is often nothing more than a dead animal in gelatin, a pig carcass shot from a cannon, or those insidious "gates" and curtains that were set up in Central Park in NYC not that long ago. It's not art, and the person who did it is not an artist. It's also an insult to talented artists, just as some experimental "music" is an insult to talented musicians.

There's nothing wrong with spending the time and effort to get good at something. Doing things for the shock value is a cheap way out.

[Mark Hammer]

All art is of a time and place. Stuff that seems like a cop-out or scam at time B may well have been a bold and creative step at timeA. here in Ottawa, you can't imagine the howls of derision that arose when our national gallery purchased this little (543.6 x 243.8 cm) item for $1.8million:

Thousands of letters to the editor about "my kid could paint that" cropped up. Curators defended the purchase by noting that the painting was from a transitional period of an important artist. Undoubtedly, if it had come from my own kid last year, they would not have paid $1.80 for it.

Same thing with Cage. 4'33" is of a time and place in the history of music, as are Christo's "gates" of a time and place in the history of art.

Can we please get back to pickups now?

[SJE]

Scales burblers . . . well I have to say one of my all time favourites is this man:

YouTube - CHRIS POLAND PLAYS HIS OLD BC RICH

A very under-rated guitarist but one with quite possibly the smoothest legato actions in the world who plays through Jazz, Fusion and Metal with ease but also keeps a melody.

His work on Megadeth's first 2 albums laid pretty much the foundation for many metal leads these days.

Check out this version of Crossroads . . .
YouTube - Chris Poland and Robertino "Pag" Pagliari NAMM 20009 video - "Crossroads"

Who says blues have to be basic!

On the note of Marty Friedman - regardless of personality or personal feelings he laid down some of the best thrash leads ever recorded. The Tornado of Souls being a prime example.

[StarryNight]

I would go as far to say that music can exist with the absence of sound. Music is a manifestation of thought. It is from that germinal thought and intent that music comes into existence. I can sit in a perfectly quiet room and hear music. Realize that i'm using the word 'hear' in a larger context than just air pressure hitting my eardrum and sending signals to my brain (or through bone induction). If the intention of composing a piece of music without the use of sound is a legitimate expression of creative thought, then the 'music' within that musical composition does exist. If there is some other motive behind the piece then it is an expression of that motive and not of music. Picasso said "everything you can imagine is real" In terms of creative human expression I think he's right. Defining music as just melody, rhythm and harmony is a limiting adage that's been passed down by those that wish to define music in a small conceptual box. If we accept that music is an intrinsic expressive language then we must accept that music is manifest in the brain/soul long before it reaches the piano or guitar. Example: if I write 3 notes: C, E & G I am communicating to you a musical thought. I'm not physically playing these notes so you can 'hear' them but you are now hearing those notes in sequence as I wrote them. If one does not speak the same language I'm using to communicate this musical thought it will not make sense, but for those who do, the musical expression I've manifest is communicated to you without sound.

[David Schwab]

I would go as far to say that music can exist with the absence of sound. Music is a manifestation of thought. It is from that germinal thought and intent that music comes into existence. I can sit in a perfectly quiet room and hear music.

That's true, but you hear the music in your head. If you had never heard a note, you wouldn't be able to do that. You can hear speech and other sounds in your head too.

I have written pieces of music entirely on paper, but I knew what it would sound like. But it's also fun to compose using a non linear method, like on a computer, and then be surprised by what you hear.

It is from that germinal thought and intent that music comes into existence. I can sit in a perfectly quiet room and hear music. Realize that i'm using the word 'hear' in a larger context than just air pressure hitting my eardrum and sending signals to my brain (or through bone induction). If the intention of composing a piece of music without the use of sound is a legitimate expression of creative thought, then the 'music' within that musical composition does exist.

I think it's safe to abstract music from sound for this discussion. You are talking about sound. Music is a type of sound. What separates random noise from music? Birds sing "songs" but dogs don't. Why is that? What makes something "music" to our ears?

Music is organized sounds mostly consisting of sounds with pitch and duration arranged in a manner that we recognize as a melody, etc. You can make a synth or computer play random pitches, but it doesn't sound like music. All human music fits this criteria, and even bird songs.

If there is some other motive behind the piece then it is an expression of that motive and not of music. Picasso said "everything you can imagine is real" In terms of creative human expression I think he's right.

That's true, and thinking of music in your head fires the same brain cells as hearing it with your ears.

Defining music as just melody, rhythm and harmony is a limiting adage that's been passed down by those that wish to define music in a small conceptual box.

So as I mentioned before, what defines something as music and not noise? Noise can be interesting, especially if its rhythmic. This is an intrinsic ability humans have, to make music. We sing, we whistle, we make sounds with objects, and have been doing so for a long time. Chimps don't, and they share 99% of our DNA.

If we accept that music is an intrinsic expressive language then we must accept that music is manifest in the brain/soul long before it reaches the piano or guitar. Example: if I write 3 notes: C, E & G I am communicating to you a musical thought. I'm not physically playing these notes so you can 'hear' them but you are now hearing those notes in sequence as I wrote them. If one does not speak the same language I'm using to communicate this musical thought it will not make sense, but for those who do, the musical expression I've manifest is communicated to you without sound.

If you only write down those three notes, it's not music, at least it wont be the music you hear in your head. It's the framework for music. I can hear those notes though. But that's because they have been defined already. We play on instruments with standard tuning so we can play along with other instruments. At least in western music systems. In India you might tune to the singers range.

So to play the notes you picked, the way you want them played, you first need to define what octave those notes are in, and how to play them. How long do you hold each one, etc. Without those instruction I'll likely play something very different that you had in mind. That's not a bad thing, if that's your intent. John McLaughlin used to pick the modes for the players to improvise with based on their Zodiac signs.

Of course people figured this issue out when they invented written music. But I'll be the first to say you can't express certain things in writing, which is why I hardly ever write or read music anymore. It's often much faster by ear.

So I think we can agree that music is an abstract idea with concrete concepts that have been worked out over time by the music makers that came before us. This is especially evident when you have genres of music, like R&B, rock, blues, reggae, etc. You are expected to know the vocabulary that defines that style of music. And that's rather arbitrary, based on past performances but earlier musicians playing that form of music. But if you are playing a well known form of music, like the blues, and we don't play what's expected of us in that setting, people who follow that style of music will not enjoy it, even if what you are playing is musically good.

[tedmich]

Scales burblers . . . well I have to say one of my all time favourites is this man:
A very under-rated guitarist but one with quite possibly the smoothest legato actions in the world who plays through Jazz, Fusion and Metal with ease but also keeps a melody.

His work on Megadeth's first 2 albums laid pretty much the foundation for many metal leads these days.

Check out this version of Crossroads . . .

Who says blues have to be basic!

not bad but JB makes more interesting sounds after a bean dinner IMHO

YouTube - Trouble Man - Jeff Beck

the non-notes are best!

please accept my apologies for the above comment as well as all the >2M tons of unrequested munitions my country shipped to Laos in the distant past

[David Schwab]

the non-notes are best!

Jeff's the best at doing guitar noise! He can tear up some scales too! Just listen to him on Wired. One of my favorite players.