Picking up guitar

[Diablo de Acero]

I forgot Phil Keaggy. How I forgot I don't know. Glass Harp and solo work. The biggest and best influence usually is your older sibling or the that person who can steer you to stuff you would have never found on your own.

[suhacycles]

Check out these guys on YouTube and be totally amazed or disgusted:

Igor Presnyakov
Tommy Emmanuel
Gabriella Quevedo
Sungha Jung
Guthrie Govan
Mateus Asato

[ZenNMotion]

The euro-hippie vibe may not be your thing, but Estas Tonne should be on your short list for unobtainable pure virtuosity with flamenco-style guitar.

[spopepro]

I think I should maybe say a little more about music theory, why or why not to learn it, and how theory and music go together.

I went hard on theory in my post because OP said theory was a goal. And when I talk to people who want to learn music often times they do mention theory as something they are interested in learning. I think there are a few reasons why this is a valid goal beyond just learning how to play tunes:
-Knowledge just because is always good. Theory can be hard, it's abstract, and it's a great brain exercise that has a lower barrier to entry and a higher aesthetic quality than say nonlinear dynamics or other hard academic stuff.
-Theory can train you to listen for things in music that you might not catch and can improve your enjoyment of listening. For example, take sonata-allegro form. If you were born in 1760 or so and grew up listening to the music of the time you wouldn't have to learn about the theory involved in the form because you would just hear it. We don't have that imprinted on us anymore (and in fact, listening to music from many eras is a relatively new development in human history) so theory is your entry into how to listen for the structure and form of the first movement of classical and romantic symphonies. They are a lot more fun when you can engage with them in this manner. In undergrad music programs, a full 2 years of theory are required before you take music history. Theory is the scaffolding to understand the development of music throughout history.
-Theory is a shortcut. Sure, if you devote your life to listening and playing music from a relatively narrow genre, you will just start to "hear" and "feel" everything and you don't need theory. But you aren't Charlie Parker and you won't listen to as much music as he did and you won't play as much as he did. With theory you can be like "I need to end this phrase with a sense of unease" and know immediately that a tonic chord in 2nd inversion is one way to get the feel you're looking for.
-Functional harmony helps you play with others. Grab your axe and sit in. The other players call a tune and you don't know it. But they let you know it's rhythm changes in Eb. Now you're good to go.


All that said, knowing how to spell a german 6th isn't going to help you play music. And while I've performed in a bunch of cool places, made some good recordings, played with some awesome people, my one great regret in music is that if my friends are hanging out drinking whisky and passing a guitar playing tunes, I have no way to participate. It feels bad... but that's just how my training and my experience went. So for anyone thinking of picking up an instrument, I'd suggest to think about what you want to get out of it, and how you would enjoy playing. If you want to jam with friends and casually play tunes and stuff, guitar is unmatched. If you want to learn theory and more deeply engage with music and don't mind practicing and playing alone most of the time, piano is really the best choice. And if you want to spend more time arguing with a recalcitrant dry weed than playing music then I heartily suggest bassoon.

[maleja]

I think I should maybe say a little more about music theory, why or why not to learn it, and how theory and music go together.

I went hard on theory in my post because OP said theory was a goal. And when I talk to people who want to learn music often times they do mention theory as something they are interested in learning. I think there are a few reasons why this is a valid goal beyond just learning how to play tunes:
-Knowledge just because is always good. Theory can be hard, it's abstract, and it's a great brain exercise that has a lower barrier to entry and a higher aesthetic quality than say nonlinear dynamics or other hard academic stuff.
-Theory can train you to listen for things in music that you might not catch and can improve your enjoyment of listening. For example, take sonata-allegro form. If you were born in 1760 or so and grew up listening to the music of the time you wouldn't have to learn about the theory involved in the form because you would just hear it. We don't have that imprinted on us anymore (and in fact, listening to music from many eras is a relatively new development in human history) so theory is your entry into how to listen for the structure and form of the first movement of classical and romantic symphonies. They are a lot more fun when you can engage with them in this manner. In undergrad music programs, a full 2 years of theory are required before you take music history. Theory is the scaffolding to understand the development of music throughout history.
-Theory is a shortcut. Sure, if you devote your life to listening and playing music from a relatively narrow genre, you will just start to "hear" and "feel" everything and you don't need theory. But you aren't Charlie Parker and you won't listen to as much music as he did and you won't play as much as he did. With theory you can be like "I need to end this phrase with a sense of unease" and know immediately that a tonic chord in 2nd inversion is one way to get the feel you're looking for.
-Functional harmony helps you play with others. Grab your axe and sit in. The other players call a tune and you don't know it. But they let you know it's rhythm changes in Eb. Now you're good to go.


All that said, knowing how to spell a german 6th isn't going to help you play music. And while I've performed in a bunch of cool places, made some good recordings, played with some awesome people, my one great regret in music is that if my friends are hanging out drinking whisky and passing a guitar playing tunes, I have no way to participate. It feels bad... but that's just how my training and my experience went. So for anyone thinking of picking up an instrument, I'd suggest to think about what you want to get out of it, and how you would enjoy playing. If you want to jam with friends and casually play tunes and stuff, guitar is unmatched. If you want to learn theory and more deeply engage with music and don't mind practicing and playing alone most of the time, piano is really the best choice. And if you want to spend more time arguing with a recalcitrant dry weed than playing music then I heartily suggest bassoon.

I agree to a point. I think your point about asking what one wants out of the experience is important. And I agree that having a formal understanding of music is helpful at times. However, I always cringe when people are beginners on an instrument and they have a misunderstanding of what theory is, and why it is important. They always bemoan the fact that they don't know enough theory as if that is the reason they cannot play as well as they would like. I think part of the reason for this is that learning to play music is an enormous task, and most people spend a lot of time feeling in the dark about it. They think that there is some magical knowledge that will turn on a light bulb allowing them to play better. That's simply not the case. Hard listening and extensive practice of playing actual music are the best ways to improve music making. Listening to and playing actual music will give you quite a bit of knowledge in itself. You will begin to recognize and hear/feel forms and resolutions. If you learn 25 standards, you will see the patterns emerge. The conservatory student who is required to study theory already has quite a bit of knowledge about form, and likely some basic theory, by the time he takes his first theory class. He didn't begin in elementary school squeaking away on the violin and then start harmonizing scales and superimposing chords at the same time he was developing a foundation on his instrument. Similarly, I don't think a beginner guitar player should begin with theory. I think learning some chords and trying to pick up tunes/melodies by ear is the best early approach for guitar. Eventually, one can add as much formal training as needed to accomplish one's goals, but it shouldn't be the focus at the beginning.

[spopepro]

Yeah, we mostly agree.

He didn't begin in elementary school squeaking away on the violin and then start harmonizing scales and superimposing chords at the same time he was developing a foundation on his instrument. Similarly, I don't think a beginner guitar player should begin with theory.

Except that’s *exactly* how I started with piano when I was 5. Scales and chords, and naming the chords by function. Theme and variations of twinkle twinkle and transposing to different keys. It massively accelerated my progress in learning many instruments and styles. Allowed me to test out of first semester music theory and all my piano requirements at my music school.

I do agree that beginning guitarists shouldn’t start with theory but that’s because guitar is an awful instrument to support learning theory (my original point).

But yes, theory is hard and if learning it is in the way of progressing with an instrument, then forget it. Better to play for fun and enjoyment (which admittedly has always been a challenge for me).

[SunnySideUp]

IMHO:

SRV
Pat Metheny
Jimi
Eddie
Jeff Beck
Robert Cray
David Gilmour
Rodrigo y Gabriela

[Bob Ross]

music comes first and theory is secondary. I always hear people say they don't know enough theory. Theory is analysis that is secondary to the music.

The important thing for neophyte musicians to realize is that ^^^this is true both in a hierarchical sense and in a temporal sense: Theory is what comes after the music has been made/heard and someone says "Whoa, that was cool! What the hell did I just listen to?!?! Hmm, I need to check it out..."

Who's your guitar hero?

If I had to limit it to just one name, it'd be Bill Frisell. I first saw him perform in 1977 when he was barely out of Berklee and I remember turning to my friend and saying "this guitarist is something special". In the 80s I'd go hear Bill's quartet perform every time they played in NYC. I own a crap-ton of his albums, and lately I've been watching a lot of his youtube shows where he takes on the repertoire of an iconic 1960s pop songwriter (e.g., Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, John Lennon). Never dull, never formulaic, always engaging and deep and tasteful. Big chops, bigger ears.

But since I don't have to limit it to just one name, I'll also give a shout out to
- Wes Montgomery
- John McLaughlin
- David Torn
- Steve Howe
- Joe Pass
- Allan Holdsworth
- Adrian Belew
- Guthrie Govan

[clunk]

My favorite players are Bill Frisell and Peter Bernstein, but there are lots of amazing players out there.

I’m really digging Bernstein’s “Signs Live!” record. It seems like anything Mehldau is involved in is good.

[maleja]

I’m really digging Bernstein’s “Signs Live!” record. It seems like anything Mehldau is involved in is good.

Bernstein is one of the greats as is Frisell. Bernstein's Monk record is unreal.

[defspace]

How's about Julian Lage? Terrific stuff.

Learn your open "cowboy" chords, grab a Beatles songbook and you're gonna have fun.

[guido]

I’m really digging Bernstein’s “Signs Live!” record. It seems like anything Mehldau is involved in is good.

Its hard to find, but try to get a copy of his Monk record. The best treatment of Monk I have heard on guitar. Just amazing... Rumor has it it is going to be re-released...

[guido]

Bernstein is one of the greats as is Frisell. Bernstein's Monk record is unreal.

That's funny! I hadn't seen this when I made the same recommendation! Convergence...

[maleja]

Its hard to find, but try to get a copy of his Monk record. The best treatment of Monk I have heard on guitar. Just amazing... Rumor has it it is going to be re-released...

Agreed. I would even go as far as to say it is the best treatment of Monk period. I can't think of anyone that captures Monk's uniqueness as well, on any instrument.

[guido]

Agreed. I would even go as far as to say it is the best treatment of Monk period. I can't think of anyone that captures Monk's uniqueness as well, on any instrument.

Bill Frisell is a fine interpreter of Monk as well... The Monk tune was always a highlight of any Paul Motian Trio set...

[chasea]

Keef.

[clunk]

Agreed. I would even go as far as to say it is the best treatment of Monk period. I can't think of anyone that captures Monk's uniqueness as well, on any instrument.

It seems that it’s next to impossible to find, unfortunately.

[maleja]

It seems that it’s next to impossible to find, unfortunately.

Indeed it is. Looks like it is going for crazy prices right now. Let's hope it does get re-released. If you like organ trios, his Earth Tones is great too.

[j44ke]

Appears to be on Spotify, but I've never been able to get Spotify to work on my computer.

Monk by Peter Bernstein Trio on Spotify

[Diablo de Acero]

Appears to be on Spotify, but I've never been able to get Spotify to work on my computer.

Monk by Peter Bernstein Trio on Spotify

Spotify is kind of a pain. Only one user at a time. So if you are signed on with your phone, your computer(same account)does not work and vise versa. I just leave it signed into my phone full time.