Best Guitar training method (print or DVD)

[maroonandwhite]

I know there are a few guys on here who play the guitar so hopefully you can help. I have been playing casually for almost 13 years now and consider myself pretty good. I can of course play any song with just chords. I know one or two scales but can't read music (other than tab), don't really know any in depth theory, and am kind of in a rut. I want to develop further but don't want to take lessons from someone. Can you recommend any of the printed material or DVD sets? I saw one called Rock House Method that most seemed to like but I don't know anything about them and would prefer not to waste my money haha. I am looking to learn anything from Blues/Rock to country. Thanks!

[Sandman]

If you have a gaming system look at "rocksmith". I got it for Christmas and you can plug your own guitar in and play along with whatever you want. I'm not 100% that it teaches how to read music but I do know scales and "lead" type guitaring is involved.

[maroonandwhite]

I have played that over at my cousin's house. While it could be a good tool it's not really what I am leaning towards. Thanks for the advice though.

[Lumber_Jack]

if I had the time, I would get face-to-face lessons. I have had them before and if you have a good instructor, they are invaluable. I know that doesn't answer your question, but its the best advice I've got

[maroonandwhite]

That's my problem. I don't have the time!!

[peejman]

If you don't have time for face-to-face lessons, you'll be hard pressed to find time to play with a DVD enough to get anything useful out of it.

I'm mostly self taught as well. I bought a guitar and a few tab books about 15 years ago (sheesh... has it been that long?!?!) and just figured it out as I went. I never got what I'd consider "good" but I could play a few things. About 5 years ago, I started taking a few lessons and learned more in a year than I did in the 10 prior.

Then I changed jobs twice, moved, and had 2 kids so I haven't played much at all and feel like I need to start over. I still enjoy it, but the skills erode very quickly.

[maroonandwhite]

Yeah my problem is no one is close. I have a block of time I could devote to lessons but no one reputable in my area that I know of.

[PolePosition]

Check out John Petrucci's Rock Discipline DVD. It will definitely improve your overall playing, skill, and technique a lot. I haven't used it myself but I know good guitarists that recommend it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

My skill (as sucky as it is) is on keyboards, though will occasionally torture myself on guitar or bass. Dexterity, muscle control, and coordination between hands is more demanding IMO on guitar or other stringed instruments, and I just ain't got it. Some people can know what to do but never be able to pull it off without it sounding truly awful. Takes both knowledge and skill.

There are more commercial lessons softwares than you can shake a stick at. I don't keep up with it. However, last time I looked, there seemed to be numerous free web sites with instructional materials worth reading. Might first practice the google-foo and dig out whatever is free and also useful. Some of the topics are better learned (IMO) with text and pictures. On the other hand, go to youtube.com and type in the search term "guitar lessons".

I've always been more interested in making my own tunes than learning someone else's, but learning other folks tunes can be educational, and some of the most gifted players perform lots and compose little or none. It is a "learn by doing" craft even in classical musical education.

Wife kicks my butt on keyboards. She is classically trained at college level. She can instantly read all the flyspecks and seriously do a number on a bach prelude and fugue with both hands and both feet. But she can't play a lick if it ain't on a piece of paper, even after college level music theory courses. I on the other hand can laboriously peck my way thru sheet music until I have it "memorized", and on a good day play more good notes than bad, but if I want to learn a tune, I'll learn the tune off the recording. A chord chart might be helpful assuming it is accurate, otherwise I'll just write my own. I don't want to play the tune the same way every time, and even if I wanted to do that, am lacking the skill to do so.

So it depends on what goals you have. Some lucky folks have perfect technique, read music better than reading the newspaper, have a perfect ear and can figure out a song on the first listen, the whole shebang. Sometimes they are even intelligent, rich, and handsome! Everybody has different goals and aptitudes.

When I started hardly anybody even had tape recorders and unless they had a good enough ear to hear all the notes after a couple of listens, they would learn a song by ruining a vinly record. Drop the needle, play a riff, raise the needle, try to duplicate the riff or figure out the chord, rinse and repeat until you can play along with the entire song.

Nowadays computer media players and various'n'sundry recorders make it easier, but I think it remains a useful skill to learn. Assuming it is something one wants to be able to do.

Playing in a band is great learning experience (assuming you like playing ensemble type music). It teaches how to play in-sync with other people. You get lots of "free lessons" especially if you can get with folks who know a little more than you do. If you are rushing or dragging tempo and never noticed, the drummer (among others) will make sure you are aware of it. If you play too many klinkers or tasteless riffs, they will most likely tell you about that as well. Over and over again! Hey, a guy can't know unless he is told, right? In addition, in many kinds of music, it will teach dynamics of soft here and loud there. Of playing no louder or softer than necessary to fit with the group. And learn the trick that in the majority of cases, less is more. Play as simple and sparse as possible, only as busy as is necessary.

Most human perception has an "optimum level of complexity". If a piece of music has too few notes (without other musical parameters to add complexity) then the average listener will lose interest. If a piece of music has too many notes, then the average listener will again lose interest. There is an optimum average level of complexity, though some individuals appreciate more complexity than others of course. Sometimes it is termed "tastefulness of playing" but boils down to "just the right amount" of complexity. If a song has an unusually complex chord/harmony structure, then most often it will have fairly simple rhythm or melody. If a song has unusually complex melody, then it will tend to have relatively simple rhythm and chords. If a song has unusually complex rhythm, then it will tend to have relatively simple melody and chords. If a band has lots of musicians, then each musician will play less. Speaking in broad generalities.

Just saying, people who may be naturally talented who have not played much with an ensemble, tend to play excessively busy, which loses most listeners' interest. Which is fine if you are only doing it for your own enjoyment. Whatever makes a person happy. But if one also would want to play with an ensemble or maybe have other people interested in listening, it is good to get a "gut feel" for how it all fits together.

If it isn't practical to be in a garage band (or more ambitous) then software can be useful. There is lots of software and hardware nowadays that can tighten up your ability to play with a "simulated group." So maybe later if you sit in with a real group it isn't such a shock to discover how bad yer timing is up on a stage.

Another advantage of many softwares is that you can play the tune slow at first, and gradually kick up the tempo as you get better. In addition, if you are having trouble with a four-bar section, you can loop that section, first at slow tempo, then increasingly fast, until you can nail that four bars. Then move on to other parts of the tune that need work.

Already wrote too much boring stuff. Might later mention some more about software.

[LDRider]

I would recommend you look at:

http://www.learnandmaster.com/guitar/

It starts simply and builds. Teaches technique and theory as you move along. It is set up where I think someone with your skills could get through the early chapters quickly as you probably already have/know the techniques but can concentrate on the theory.

I have recently started this and am enjoying it.

Jeff

[Guest mustangdave]

Seriously....take some lessons from a teaching musician...and PRACTICE..Practice Practice....and then play with others musicians...FOR REAL...not on some silly ass video game.

[mav]

I would recommend Troy Stetina's series. http://www.stetina.com/

I have went through all of his books. They are all very good. I also have Petrucci's Rock Discipline. It is good as well.

[peejman]

I would recommend Troy Stetina's series. http://www.stetina.com/

I have went through all of his books. They are all very good. I also have Petrucci's Rock Discipline. It is good as well.

I've got one of his (Stetina's) books. There's good info and it's laid out pretty well. The only problem I had was discipline to sit down and go through it. I found the potential embarrassment of having to sit in front of an actual person and muck through something I hadn't practiced far more motivating.

Edited February 23, 2012 by peejman

[TGO David]

I would recommend you look at:

http://www.learnandmaster.com/guitar/

It starts simply and builds. Teaches technique and theory as you move along. It is set up where I think someone with your skills could get through the early chapters quickly as you probably already have/know the techniques but can concentrate on the theory.

I have recently started this and am enjoying it.

Jeff

I will second this. Great set of DVDs and workbooks.

[maroonandwhite]

Lot's of good info here guy's. Kepp it coming as I haven't made up my mind yet. I am leaning towards the gibson set but want to do a little more research before spending that much. I looked at some rock house method on youtube last night and unless it has improved over the last 20 years I don't think it really goes in depth enough on some of the more advanced stuff.

[maroonandwhite]

Well after reading a little more I came across Fretboard Logic. The book was cheap at around $13 for volume 1 and 2 in one book so I am going to try it. I'm sure I will follow it up with a dvd course of some type. Does anyone have any experience with this book? It sounds like it offers what I am looking for which is a good base and understanding of everything.

[Tempest455]

if I had the time, I would get face-to-face lessons. I have had them before and if you have a good instructor, they are invaluable. I know that doesn't answer your question, but its the best advice I've got

Ditto. And if you only have time for just a few, with a good teacher or mentor, you will remember the details and be able to teach yourself for years to come.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi bendbolden

Was thinking about your goals-- Scales, Reading music, and theory-- as relevant to blues/rock and country?

The reading music and scales are part of the theory. People do not always HAVE to read music in order to understand the theory. In some cases gifted people will understand the theory inside-out backwards-and-forwards and not even know the legit words to describe the concepts. Ferinstance I got to know guitarist Kenneth Thumbs Carllile who was supremely expert in all things theory and technique but did not necessarily know the correct terminology. Another example is Erroll Garner, who supposedly did not read music but was a world-class master of applied theory. Then again there are other masters of jazz, blues, rock, country who are college educated experts. Knowing the correct terminology doesn't prevent a person from playing good.

There is reading music and then there is READING MUSIC. It is easiest to find yer way around theory if you can read music at least a little bit. And it is easiest to read a single-line like an orchestra horn or string part, than to read a page full of simultaneous polyphonic flyspecks that a pianist or guitarist would have to read in the classical field. But except in fields such as classical music, show tune orchestra, movie soundtrack or gospel/church music, pro's in the real world don't HAVE to "real time" read a page full of polyphonic flyspecks, though it is a very useful skill to know.

Except for big band jazz and a few other non-classical niches, it can commonly be a head arrangement with no paper documentation. If there is any printed music at all it will commonly be just a chord chart. Sometimes it will be a lead sheet, which has the simplified melody plus chord symbols. Just because there isn't much detail in a lead sheet doesn't mean a person would be ignorant of theory playing the lead sheet. A person applies "practical harmony" to fill in the gaps in real time, based on the broad outline of the simplified melody and chords. Sometimes the chords will be very detailed, but on the other hand often the chords are written "bare bones simple" and the musician is expected to select his own alterations and enhancements which actually sound good in the song.

Am not trying to be pedantic, but thinking maybe the music theory part could be isolated from the guitar-playing part of the equation. The music theory is generally applicable to all players. If you know what you are trying to accomplish, then it is just a matter of "tricks of the trade" and practice to implement your idea on different instruments. If you know theory then you really don't need much in the way of lessons to pick up bass, piano, banjo, mandolin, or whatever. Except for tricks of the trade on how to move the fingers most efficiently on that instrument. Depending on one's dexterity it might be difficult to become proficient on a new instrument, but if you theoretically know what you are trying to accomplish then it is certainly easier to pick up a new instrument. Or to improve on the instrument you already play.

As best I recall, a person of average ability can know nothing about reading music and enroll in "Music theory and ear training 101" at college, and pass the course. Then take 102 or whatever if he wants. Maybe that path would be too time-consuming, but 3 hours a week for a semester plus homework ain't all that bad, and it wouldn't be exhorbitantly expensive. Or maybe find a private tutor, student or prof at a local school who will give sparser long-term lessons on the same thing if taking a for-credit course would eat too much time.

After some theory and ear training, you will start hearing details in recordings. The more you practice listening, the better you will get. You won't need to buy the sheet music or hire a teacher to learn some song or riff you like. Just figure it out off the recording and then work on the best way to get the fingers to obey yer brain's commands. Which can be tough.

Along the same lines, it can be better to start building yer own personal repertoire of tricks and riffs rather than copy somebody else's collection. Depending on yer goals. After getting a "head start" on theory and ear training, there are copious literature on fine points of harmony, melody and rhythm.

One little book I read about 1970, which is still in print, is Jerry Coker's "Improvising Jazz". You probably don't even need to know basic theory to start in on that book, because he covers the basics in the intro chapters as best I recall. But it would help to know a little theory first. His book was written about jazz idioms, but all idioms use harmony, melody and rhythm. You can apply Coker's concepts to rock, bluegrass, blues, whatever. He covers chord structures, scales, rhythms, and how they fit together. Just in general. Doesn't matter whether you play piano, banjo, or sax.

Looks like Coker's book is still in print, and looks like people still like the little book. Its the kind of book where just a few pages will give you enough ideas to keep ya busy for months.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/improvising-jazz-jerry-coker/1100626833

Anyway, just some ideas to think about.