I see two schools of thoughts.... masterings songs vs mastering scales

dsouza

dsouza

Experienced
I recall when I learned from the late Michael Casswell , he had said "I tend to teach people how to play songs".

Other guitarists like Tom Quayle tend to teach people how to play riffs and licks.

Which school do you fall into?

Why do you feel most music schools don't teach people how to play songs but instead riffs and licks?

Which would make you a better guitarist?

I often thought learning BOTH would make for optimal performance. But do you know how much time it takes to master both. You will rarely see guitarists in both camps. It's usually one or the other.

Where do you fall? Which do you prefer? And why?
 
Do you want to create your own music or only play other people's songs?

Therein lies the answer. And it has nothing to do with riffs and licks. Intervals, chord theory and modes - that is the key to be a truly great musician. Whether you come by this by ear or through formal training does not matter. But if you want to be great then come by it you must grasshopper (Luke, etc.).
 
I think using both in tandem is optimal, as you said. But focusing on riffs and licks gets you in the mindset on how to drill chunks of songs. Knowing how to drill the chunks that are challenging rather than focusing on the bigger song picture can accelerate your progress., as you learn to think about isolating and improving your weaknesses efficiently. But if one isn't mindful of how the riffs and licks connect to each other, you'll end up encountering hiccups going from one part to another, due to drilling in isolation. That's where we need to look at it from the song view, practicing how we get into and out of each chunk, and remaining mindful that a song is a mosaic of riffs and licks. I feel it's a macro focus vs a micro focus thing... but the whole always contains the two. Bridging that gap creates a well-rounded musical musician who knows when it is musical to focus on the micro or the macro.

Looking at it from the view that people are different, one approach will be more inspiring to each learner. When learning something that is a slow but continuous progression like guitar, it's important to do things that feel good to keep you going. That's the sugar. The medicine, the stuff that feels like work instead of play, is also important. So take the medicine, but rely on the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down. I.E. do both in an amount that aligns to your tolerances.
 
Optimally, you understand what makes a riff a good sounding riff and a song a good sounding song, and a solo a good solo.. How do you do this? See my previous post.

Full stop.
 
As a non gigging basement hacker playing for enjoyment, I try to be always working on theory / improvisation and songs / riffs that appeal to me. When I took formal 1:1 lessons, they were song based (pick a song, go in once a week to review progress / get guidence...). The theory / improvisation side interests me these days as there is a kind of mathematical nature to it that appeals to me, and I like noodling methodically over drone chords as well as discovering why guitar riffs that appeal to me sound the way they do, or what it is, from a theory point of view, that some artists I like tend to do which contributes to their signature sound. But I still need to be working repetetively on riffs and chord progressions purely to develop dexterity, pick/fret synchronization, timing, noise minimization, economy of movement... My love for the gear / fx / tones keeps me in it as I tend to struggle to "stick with it" on practice and go through periods where I'm just focus'd on reconfiguring gear etc - if it wasn't for that (Axfx mostly) I may well have given up on guitar by now.
 
Last edited:
I could go on forever about philosophical stuff like this. For sake of brevity I will point out one area that has eluded me and has played a role in what directions I took. First, I have to distinguish what is a “song”. Is it a composition with or without lyrical content or is it what I guess we think of as “popular” songs and that is with lyrics.

I have tried many, many times to write good and meaningful lyrics and then compose a great song like for example the Beatles, etc.. For the life of me I just can’t express myself with words in a poetic manner. It’s not like I don’t have something meaningful to say. I just find everything I write to sound contrived and cliche. I get all up in my head and question everything I write. For this reason and also because it seemed like I had better than average ability for the technical understanding of an instrument I found myself going down the route of proficient playing. I believe this is where most studio guys fall.
 
They’re 2 of many entirely separate disciplines. Sure, songs and songwriting are based on keys/chords/scales and notes, but the study of scales, arpeggios and sequences are an entire study that you can chase a lifetime. I cant remember the songwriter who said something along the lines of “ you need to know just enough music theory to not suck at it”, which honestly is not above a basic understanding level. The biggest songs in the last 100 years are basic.

Here is a brutal, hard learned fact. If you’re producing your own work alone, your productions will only be as good as what you suck at the most.

My musical life’s goal was to be proficient in everything. I want to be able to sit in most musical situations and not embarrass myself. I’m sort of there. The trade off is I never got GREAT at any one style or discipline.
 
GitGuy513 said:
I could go on forever about philosophical stuff like this. For sake of brevity I will point out one area that has eluded me and has played a role in what directions I took. First, I have to distinguish what is a “song”. Is it a composition with or without lyrical content or is it what I guess we think of as “popular” songs and that is with lyrics.

I have tried many, many times to write good and meaningful lyrics and then compose a great song like for example the Beatles, etc.. For the life of me I just can’t express myself with words in a poetic manner. It’s not like I don’t have something meaningful to say. I just find everything I write to sound contrived and cliche. I get all up in my head and question everything I write. For this reason and also because it seemed like I had better than average ability for the technical understanding of an instrument I found myself going down the route of proficient playing. I believe this is where most studio guys fall.
Click to expand...
This.
 
When I used to teach guitar I usually went for teaching my students the easier ways of playing the songs they liked. This gave them huge motivation and pride which in turn resulted in more interest, dedication and practice time and eventually made it much easier to get started with (basic) music theory and whatnot. I like to view these two approaches as complementary instead of two different schools of thought. You can learn a lot from other people's music in every way and you can also learn a lot from learning to create and improvise. It's just that when you're starting out you'll probably enjoy playing something you like more than having to learn all the different chords and scales just for the sake of being able to improvise with them later.
 
The fun thing about focusing on the scales, modal ideas, arpeggios, approach is that you can dwell in that in-between area of originality while learning, where you play your own melodies and ideas over other folks progressions. Great way to grow for sure, especially the whole improv thing. Just take a peek at YT or hell, even here in the recordings area, plenty of dudes playing over other peoples (and pro created) backing tracks but actually labeling it as their own "music" (not particularly a fan of that, I prefer creating a song from the ground up if I'm going to call it MY own music, which is far more rewarding to me and feels more legit, even if it stinks lol). I guess that's just my way of agreeing with those above that are striving to get a grasp on both methods!
 
Kabala said:
even here in the recordings area, plenty of dudes playing over other peoples (and pro created) backing tracks but actually labeling it as their own "music"
Click to expand...
I agree to a certain level. I have to give a shout out to @AtomicJeff who at most swipes the vocals and drums of the original and then nails all the other parts usually only using a FM3 and then labels it a “cover” version for full disclosure. I enjoy that stuff. Especially since they’re old tunes I love.
 
Kabala said:
The fun thing about focusing on the scales, modal ideas, arpeggios, approach is that you can dwell in that in-between area of originality while learning, where you play your own melodies and ideas over other folks progressions. Great way to grow for sure, especially the whole improv thing. Just take a peek at YT or hell, even here in the recordings area, plenty of dudes playing over other peoples (and pro created) backing tracks but actually labeling it as their own "music" (not particularly a fan of that, I prefer creating a song from the ground up if I'm going to call it MY own music, which is far more rewarding to me and feels more legit, even if it stinks lol). I guess that's just my way of agreeing with those above that are striving to get a grasp on both methods!
Click to expand...
True but 95% of performers are cover artists. Very few can make a decent living playing their own songs. Unless your the next Jackson... 1 chance in 1 million.
 
GitGuy513 said:
I agree to a certain level. I have to give a shout out to @AtomicJeff who at most swipes the vocals and drums of the original and then nails all the other parts usually only using a FM3 and then labels it a “cover” version for full disclosure. I enjoy that stuff. Especially since they’re old tunes I love.
Click to expand...
Thank you, sir! :)
I can't sing or play drums...
 
Last edited:
IMHO, in private instruction the best method is to teach the theory and then teach a song where that theory is applied. However, one must also take student goals into account. Not everyone is looking to truly master the instrument and there is no greater turnoff to someone who's looking to casually pick up the instrument to spending hours trying to master scales/modes. So ultimately, it's between a teacher and student to understand what the end goal is and the best way to approach it. That said, if we're talking music schools at that point we should only be looking at the most serious student's where a mastery of the instrument is most important and at that level there should be a much stronger focus on technical instruction.
 
Is the question actually “why do some people teach scales and why do others teach songs?”?

Personal preference of the teacher maybe? What they are good at teaching?

I’ve never heard of these 2 things being separate. They complement each other and are all part of playing any instrument.
 
dsouza said:
True but 95% of performers are cover artists. Very few can make a decent living playing their own songs. Unless your the next Jackson... 1 chance in 1 million.
Click to expand...

Correct. But if one can read music, or at a bare minimum read a lead sheet, that person essentially "knows" any song they need to on the fly. They can check the key signature and know the appropriate scales for a solo to improvise if needed. That's the point of going to a music school, to give the student the knowledge and technical skillset to succeed in any given situation.
 
You absolutely need both. Neither of those are "schools of thought" either, and no teacher that is guiding you towards eventual mastery of the instrument would strict with teaching either of those to you for any period of time, unless it was what you wanted...or needed ;)

yeah, some internet guys might focus on one area exclusively. But I wouldn't as a student.
 
Last edited:
Kelleys Heroes said:
You absolutely need both. Neither of those are "schools of thought" either, and teacher that is guiding you towards eventual mastery of the instrument would strict with teaching either of those to you for any period of time, unless it was what you wanted...or needed ;)

yeah, some internet guys might focus on one area exclusively. But I wouldn't as a student.
Click to expand...
Exactly this

My guitar teacher always split his time during lessons between playing technique, scales and learning a song to apply the scales (or vice versa). In the end you want to be able to play a song and knowing scales and how to apply them is like having different tools in your toolbox.
We would spend a lot of time on improvisation, we would learn a song, learn how to play a solo and then improvise a solo inspired on the original by using the same scales. What was great about this method is that you learn how to improvise when you make a mistake or forget a part of the original solo.
Unfortunately my skills got a bit rusty because I just don’t play enough anymore and with my lack of talent and not playing enough it does not get any better. During summer period I do a lot of cycling, now the days are shortening I will pick up playing again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom