Singer prejudice

[Banned]

First, you would have to operationally define formal training (e.g., private lessons, school instruction, college courses, etc.), and then choose what type of scale data you would be using. In this case, it would probably be easiest to compute using an ordinal scale. We could use a simple nominal scale, but that most likely wouldn't give a whole lot of information; and I don't see the need to classify this as interval data. I'm thinking that you could do a correlation coefficient (possibly a Spearman Rank-Order) to determine if there's a correlation between years of training and chosen instrument(s), though I'm still trying how to figure out what scale would be best for the instrument variable. In its simpliest terms, it would be nominal data. I'm wondering if a Kruskal-Walis could work in that case (i.e., define the groups, and rank how often formal training comes up). Obviously doing a simple percentage caluculation would yield some results, but it would be cool to look at how the variables relate to each other in different ways.

This is the same thought process Allan Holdsworth would follow if you asked him to play a G chord.

[bassist4life2004]

First, you would have to operationally define formal training (e.g., private lessons, school instruction, college courses, etc.), and then choose what type of scale data you would be using. In this case, it would probably be easiest to compute using an ordinal scale. We could use a simple nominal scale, but that most likely wouldn't give a whole lot of information; and I don't see the need to classify this as interval data. I'm thinking that you could do a correlation coefficient (possibly a Spearman Rank-Order) to determine if there's a correlation between years of training and chosen instrument(s), though I'm still trying how to figure out what scale would be best for the instrument variable. In its simpliest terms, it would be nominal data. I'm wondering if a Kruskal-Walis could work in that case (i.e., define the groups, and rank how often formal training comes up). Obviously doing a simple percentage caluculation would yield some results, but it would be cool to look at how the variables relate to each other in different ways.

This is the same thought process Allan Holdsworth would follow if you asked him to play a G chord.

You have to ask yourself at this point......What would Brian Boitano do?

[VENTGtr]

You have to ask yourself at this point......What would Brian Boitano do?

Oooh. The "Bad Boy" of Figure Skating. Getting serious now.

[songsmith]

I generally dismiss most formal vocal training.
Other than a precious few "tips" for strengthening, projection, and control, most of what people get from voice teachers, at least on a local level, is bland sameness. Never listen to your chorus teacher, unless your goal is to be sterile, and as caucasian as possible. They teach you to perfectly enunciate every word. Boring. They discourage note bends, and eschew vibrato, because if everybody did that in the choir, it'd be a cacophony of voices doing their own thing. Sorry, I do my own thing. I choose soul over the exasperated demands of someone who thinks "Cats" was genius.
Like a lot of people, I learned how to sing in church. My church was Pentecostal, and the music was the ONLY good thing about it. People truly felt what they were singing, and that's what I'm into. I learned how to connect with the song there. Harmony was learned listening to bluegrass groups... so-called "high lonesome" vocal harmonies are based in gospel, specifically "shape-note" singing popular in the South for a hundred years. I think many of the finest harmony singers in the world are from bluegrass and Southern Gospel, but you knew I'd say that. From the blues and honkytonk, I learned that perfect diction is unnecessary, and makes you sound like Pat Boone... I also learned that pain is an emotion everyone can relate to. From metal, I learned (the hard way) how to take care of your voice, as well as how to bring the power when needed.
Now obviously, I'm not exactly a virtuoso. I think adequate is rather a better term, actually, so your mileage may vary. I've long ago given up on my vocals being my primary instrument, and I'm having a full-out blast trying new instruments and new music.
I'm not formally trained, but like many of us, I can't remember not singing in front of people. That's gotta count for something. As for being told to hit the Zmin7sus4... try me. ------>JMS

[Diavolo]

My Rockpage poll is not scientific but if you'd like to combine your journalistic expertise with my PhD research chops, I'm sure we can come up with a viable scientific survey and study that compares singers to other musicians on level of formal training. Let me know. This way we can determine what's true and what's not.

If you'd honestly like to conduct this poll, I'd be willing to help. First, you would have to operationally define formal training (e.g., private lessons, school instruction, college courses, etc.), and then choose what type of scale data you would be using. In this case, it would probably be easiest to compute using an ordinal scale. We could use a simple nominal scale, but that most likely wouldn't give a whole lot of information; and I don't see the need to classify this as interval data. I'm thinking that you could do a correlation coefficient (possibly a Spearman Rank-Order) to determine if there's a correlation between years of training and chosen instrument(s), though I'm still trying how to figure out what scale would be best for the instrument variable. In its simpliest terms, it would be nominal data. I'm wondering if a Kruskal-Walis could work in that case (i.e., define the groups, and rank how often formal training comes up). Obviously doing a simple percentage caluculation would yield some results, but it would be cool to look at how the variables relate to each other in different ways.

Hmm... There's a lot to contemplate with this study.

Great suggestions.

Operationalizing the formal training is likely to get the most feedback. For example, if lessons are formal do we also determine quality of instructor, number/years of lessons, collegiate lessons,etc?

I was originally thinking something more simple like ANOVA. Two cohorts, 1)singers and 2)all other musicians. Is there a statisitically significant difference between the two groups on the "formal training" variable (measured as yes/no, 0/1)? This gets at the root of the BDR/Diavolo debate. I think.

There's plenty of other interesing questions we could address but require more thought/time/advanced methods like you've outlined bassist_25.

[lonewolf]

What about vocalists who play an instrument (or vice versa)? There are a lot of them around who swing a mic but they will pick up a guitar or sit down at a piano when its called for. Some that come to mind are Phil Collins, Steven Tyler, Freddy Mercury, David Bowie, etc.

You know what they say...you can do more with a kind word and a 2x4, er I mean you can do more with a good voice and an instrument than with a good voice.

[redawg]

HIJACK I SWEAR Dom, your tom holder is going out tomorrow or the next day at the latest Asked my buddy one simple thing and come home to find out he forgot Sorry G I'll send it to you myself

[UNEARTHA7XMatt]

I havent had the chance to go to a formal vocal trainer yet but I had training in High School. I have however been working with this DVD called "The Zen Of Screaming" by Melissa Cross and I am hoping to go to NY to have a session with her. It's expensive but worth it IMO.

[MeYatch]

I was originally thinking something more simple like ANOVA. Two cohorts, 1)singers and 2)all other musicians. Is there a statisitically significant difference between the two groups on the "formal training" variable (measured as yes/no, 0/1)? This gets at the root of the BDR/Diavolo debate. I think.

I really don't have any major opinion in this "debate" but doesn't splitting into two groups of "vocalists" and "all other musicians" just furthur illustrate a bias towards vocalists?

I think the whole thing is quite rediculous, because I have a feeling that if you ranked all instrumentalists by formal training, guitar players and bass players would fall way down towards the bottom of the list vs. piano or trumpet, or any other non-rock instrument. Wether vocalists have more or less training I can't say for sure, but I bet there are a ton of formally trained vocalists that don't come near a rock (or any other type of) band that you are completely discounting.

[bassist_25]

I really don't have any major opinion in this "debate" but doesn't splitting into two groups of "vocalists" and "all other musicians" just furthur illustrate a bias towards vocalists?

I think the whole thing is quite rediculous, because I have a feeling that if you ranked all instrumentalists by formal training, guitar players and bass players would fall way down towards the bottom of the list vs. piano or trumpet, or any other non-rock instrument. Wether vocalists have more or less training I can't say for sure, but I bet there are a ton of formally trained vocalists that don't come near a rock (or any other type of) band that you are completely discounting.

Good points! That's why I think it would be important for one of the correlational variables to have more than two levels (e.g., vocalists, guitar, piano, drums, etc.). Of course, it's possible for one to be proficient on more than one instrument, and furthermore, it's possible for one to have formal training on one instrument and not the other. Even furthmore, it's possible for one to have noninstrument-specific musical training (i.e., general music theory lessons).

Wow, I'm talking about a study on Rockpage of whether instrument choice and formal training correlate. I'm really taking this "I'm an empiricist and I need to see empirical evidence to believe anything" shit of mine a little too far. LMFOA

[metalchurch]

This is really interesting, and it's a great idea Paul!

I just recently started taking lessons from the Shredder Tom Brown about 4 months ago, but before that, only tab and playing with others.
Some say that tab is cheating or taking the easy way out. True, it might be.
Some might call it laziness.

The point of the matter is not how you won the race, it's the fact that you crossed the finish line.
Simple as that.

There's so much that I want to learn yet. And while I'm no where near where I want to be as a musician, I keep trying to improve, and that's all that matters to me.

At the end of the day, the only person that you really have to impress is yourself.

[Victor Synn]

Thats a great comparison dude, I like the way you think. If i could find a way to re-string my voice, I would do it before every show. Hell, I need to go buy new vocal chords now. I think I'm gonna go with 13's this time, little bit heavier and i can really hit the lows with them. I've been using 10's but it seems like ive been breaking them a lot lately. Maybe I play too hard. I dunno.

Sometimes after a show it feels like ive been playing my vocal chords with a metal guitar pick all night, which sucks, but I'm getting used to the strain now that we are playing out more, so my voice is getting more stamina than what it had in the past.

I've learned a few tricks about singing and some ways to prolong my voice, for instance, not drinking alcohol before or during a show is a big one. Every time I drink before a show i lose part of my voice early on. Happened to me at 4D's a few weeks ago. Also, Dave V. from data music gave me some sound advice about breathing exercises while singing, which i am grateful for.

Vocal chords are like guitar strings, you have to work them a certain way to make them last a while.

If you're using 10's Ken, I must be using 2's because there are times I feel like someone made me swallow a knife while choking me.

In any case, rickw's and Ken's posts are 110% true. A vocalist's job is, in a lot of ways, the most physically dangerous job in a band. If a singer tears a chord, you're looking at surgery and recovery time of at least 6 months, as well as working with a speech therapist and a vocal coach so that you don't lose range in your voice. Singers deal with chord nodules that can also effect their speaking voice, as well as their breathing when not singing. If nodules increase in size, then surgery is required to fix it, which starts the long healing cycle the same as a torn chord. Not to mention that getting sick can also wreak havok on a singer's voice.

No matter how you slice it, the vocalist has a lot more riding on his health than any instrumentalist. Because the after-effects of damage to him/her could be permanent. Jimi, when he was with us, and Michael J. Coxx had stated years ago in HF1 that the vocalist in any band should be protected. Because if he goes down, the band is fucked. That's the truest statement you'll ever hear.

As far as who a crowd pays attention to, I totally agree that the vocalist is the focal point. Someone said 60%. In my opinion it's more like 70-80%. Reason being that any normal, non-musically inclined club patron will dictate his/her experience based on 2 people within a band. The singer and the guitarists. Not to discount drummers or bassists. I'm taking this from experience. The casual patrons that wander into the clubs we play in will usually compliment myself or my guitarists first and the rest of the band afterwards. I'm sure that's happened to other bands on here as well. Singers are what defines your band. Pick any karaoke schmuck off the street and you'll be playing to your girlfriends and the bar staff. Find a singer who will sell their ass on that stage and you'll have people stuffing bills in your pockets. That theory is the same for any band. If you center your band around being more instrumental (i.e. Rush, Dream Theater, etc.), you'd better damn well get the best instrumentalists you can find. That's just common sense.

To contribute to this mystical poll thing, I've never had formal training by personal vocal coach. I did, however, start singing at the age of 7 and continued to till this day. In my teen years, my days usually consisted of spending 7 hours in school and at least 5 hours everyday after school singing to CD's. Only exception to that is if I was in basketball season, in which case, I sang for 3 hours after school and practice. No, I don't know music theory, but my bandmates have grown to understand my way of communicating my problems with a song because I usually sing the particular parts I see as an issue and sing the solution to that to show them what I mean. You don't need to have trained in theory to get your point across if you have someone in your group that has another way of showing you. However, that doesn't make me less of a musician or singer. If nothing else, it shows how singers that aren't trained can improvise and adapt to a situation so that everyone can understand.

Finally, being a singer, as I've seen some people say already, is a demanding job in and of itself. Not only do you have to nail those vocal passages, you also have to memorize a full set of lyrics, which could be as simple as a 2 verse Misfits song or as intricate as a 10 minute Maiden epic. Multiply that by 30+ for a full night of music and there you go. Just as much responsibility as any instrumentalist.

I have a lot of respect for anybody who plays in a band, whether an instrumentalist or a vocalist, but I agree with BDR that there is some kind of strange bias against singers and their talent that does exist within not only this area's scene, but any music scene. For anyone that might have that bias, wake up. We are the ones that usually shoulder the burden of making your band succeed or fail. Give credit where credit is due. For those of you that do appreciate what we do, trust me, it's also appreciated by us. And that will show in what we do.

[metalchurch]

Great post, Victor.
You made alot of strong points for sure.

I wanted to add to something you said about getting compliments from patrons. And I'm speaking in generalities here.....

It's great to get compliments from patrons, whether they are merely by standers or musicians.
You do not want to discount what anyone says, a compliment is just that, a compliment.
Does it mean more to you guys to receive compliments from musicians, rather than people just there to see the show?

I would say to me it would be the former, mostly because they are on the same plane as me and they can recognize the talent, time and effort that you put into your craft, whatever instrument you play.

Then again all feedback whether it be good or bad is good. I guess depending on the situation. The patrons write the check that pays you, so to speak, so you want to hear them out as well.

Of course, musicians are not always the best critics. I know some guys that do not play anything, but being a true fan of music, their opinion about certain things really impresses me. And sometimes it's hard to believe that they don't play an instrument. I'm sure you guys all know atleast 1 or 2 people like that.

It is sad that all members of a band do not get the same respect.
Each and everyone in the band has a job to do, and each in their own right commands a certain degree of respect.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Members of the band can only hide for so long in the mix before they break the chain so to speak.

[bassist4life2004]

Nice post Vic, you nailed my observations about the music scene and singing to a T.

I had a small amount of formal training in singing, I was in chorus for a year in 8th grade, haha. Thats about as far as my vocal training went. When someone in the band says "Oh, this would work better if you sang in E flat, or something like that, I basically just listen to the note that they are playing and try to improvise off of that til I make them happy. I dont know how to sing different keys and scales, but I can hear a note and instantly know how to adjust my vocals to match what we are doing. I know what key I'm playing guitar in, to a point, but i cant figure out complex scales like some people can do. I just dont have the aptitude for that. I like to just work things out on my own and not knowing keys that songs are in lets me think outside the box a little bit more, in my opinion.

I do, however, agree that all vocalists should learn standard breathing exercises on their own time or with training. Breathing correctly can make the difference between hitting that high note dead on, and totally trainwrecking a note and hitting it flat.

In fact, i think thats more of the kind of thing we should discuss openly on rockpage, instead of all the political stuff, and flame wars. We dont have enough "Training" or "Help" threads on rockpage. We could all share some valuable advice with eachother if we had that. Even guitarists could share tips and tricks.

[MeYatch]

I like to just work things out on my own and not knowing keys that songs are in lets me think outside the box a little bit more, in my opinion.

I disagree with that statement. Whatever bias there is in the music community against singers, there is also a bias among musicians who are unfamiliar with music theory against those that are. I have heard many times that everyone that knows scales or how to read music is automatically a robot and unable to properly improvise or similar statements. I think its a pretty dumb thing to think. Yes its possible to play by ear, without knowing any theory, and knowing theory doesn't make a person a better musician, but it does give you an increased bag of tricks, and a head start on those that don't. I suspect that the bias mostly stems from jealousy (warranted or not)

[Gallowglass]

I wanted to say something on this thread then I realized Bassist_25 already said everything I wanted to say. Bastard!

[bassist_25]

I wanted to say something on this thread then I realized Bassist_25 already said everything I wanted to say. Bastard!

LOL I'm sorry Jason. I guess that great minds (or is it fucked up minds?) think alike. I'm going to be in Altoona tomorrow night, so I'm hoping to stop by Aldo's.

Does it mean more to you guys to receive compliments from musicians, rather than people just there to see the show?

I really feel good when someone gives me an honest compliment, regardless of whether they're a fellow musician or a patron. In my experience, both people can blow smoke up your ass and both people can really respect what you're doing. I don't really make a distinction in that regard. Compliments usually are good for me because they actually make me more humble rather than feed my ego.

[BDR]

BDR,

A music-related discussion on Rockpage is certainly welcome. I've enjoyed the spirited debate. And now, the debate continues.

I see that you're using your journalism training when looking for the subtext of "Not too shabby for a singer." In the context I made the comment, I was defending David Lee Roth. Thanks for pointing out what I really meant: I have an obvious and irrefutable prejudice toward singers. Whether I "admit to it or not." This sounds like something from a message analysis course at the Jayson Blair School of (mis)Communications.

On the other hand, couldn't an alternative explanation exist? Maybe your own inferiority complex about being a singer affects your interpretation of my comment. Just maybe?

I intended no ill will toward singers. They are the focal point in most bands and are the primary means of communicating with the audience, all this in addition to their musical contributions. All of which are very valuable. But I stand by my comments about the difference in formal training between most vocalists and other musicians. My insistence (try spell check) on this does not prove I'm "close-minded" or have a "narrow view of singers as “real” musicians." It's merely an observation based on my own experience with vocalists.

My Rockpage poll is not scientific but if you'd like to combine your journalistic expertise with my PhD research chops, I'm sure we can come up with a viable scientific survey and study that compares singers to other musicians on level of formal training. Let me know. This way we can determine what's true and what's not.

On American Idol:
My problem is not with the singers on this show. The finalists are often very talented. However, the business machine behind the show is designed to stifle creativity, present pop crap, and screw the singers out of their fair share in contracts. The singers are often exploited (including the not-so-talented ones) for TV ratings and ad dollars.

Finally, I would hate "American Shredder."

Thoughts?

Thoughts:

1) Please, correct my spelling on an Internet forum some more ... the ultimate mature retort in any debate. I was skeptical about your viewpoint up until that moment, but once you set me straight on the proper use of spell check, it really drove your position on the topic home for me. What’s next, are you going to call me a fag? LOL ...

I’m all for “spirited debate” so long as the preschool-level tactics are kept out of it.

And while you’re busy disparaging my instrument of choice, please bash my day job skills, as well, by comparing me to Jayson Blair. Very rude, very unnecessary and very off-topic.

2) Vocal performance/throwing a party in front of an audience is what I do better than anything else. I do have a day job, but my performance environment is where I am completely “at ease” and “at home.” I’m not intimidated by other frontmen/frontwomen or other musicians at all and I’ll perform with anyone without hesitation. No inferiority complex here, sorry to disappoint.

3) I’ve conceded the context of your comment several times already; however (and you are correct), the subtext of the statement, “not too shabby for a singer” is that you have plainly set the bar low in your mind for all singers with regard to general music knowledge. You imply with your comment that singers as a group wouldn’t typically be able to pick out inconsistencies in song structure, which is crap. As I’ve stated, if you would’ve said, “not too shabby for DLR,” the context and subtext of your comment would’ve matched up, there would’ve been no underlying meaning to your comment and this thread wouldn’t even exist.

4) You say you mean no ill will and do not have a prejudice toward singers but now you’re on a flipping campaign with your survey to try to prove that singers (at least here on Rockpage) are less educated in music than other musicians. The encouraging thing is you actually did say, “singers” and “other musicians,” the subtext of which suggests that you must, at the very least, consider vocalists, “musicians.” As far as my participation in developing the survey is concerned, I’ll relegate that to my bass player ... LOL ... he’s all about studies and stuff.

5) American Idol. If you bothered to read my post regarding the show, you would see that we agree on this point (I believe I used the phrase, “prepackaged crap”). However, just because the “business machine” behind the show is corrupt doesn’t mean that the actual performers are sub par. I watch with interest each year to appreciate the talent and watch the vocalists mature as musicians. I could care less who ends up with the accolades or the big contract at the end. I’m all about enjoying a song when it’s nailed.

It’s cool to see all the input and viewpoints in this thread so far. It is very refreshing to embark on a topic that has “musical merit.” Keep it coming, peeps ...

r:>)

[BDR]

Whatever bias there is in the music community against singers, there is also a bias among musicians who are unfamiliar with music theory against those that are. I have heard many times that everyone that knows scales or how to read music is automatically a robot and unable to properly improvise or similar statements. I think its a pretty dumb thing to think. Yes its possible to play by ear, without knowing any theory, and knowing theory doesn't make a person a better musician, but it does give you an increased bag of tricks, and a head start on those that don't. I suspect that the bias mostly stems from jealousy (warranted or not)

Excellent post. Not too shabby for a bass player ... LOL.

r:>)

[bassist_25]

As far as my participation in developing the survey is concerned, I’ll relegate that to my bass player ... LOL ... he’s all about studies and stuff.

It's not about who's the most musically educated with me; it's all about the science.

[bassist_25]

I disagree with that statement. Whatever bias there is in the music community against singers, there is also a bias among musicians who are unfamiliar with music theory against those that are. I have heard many times that everyone that knows scales or how to read music is automatically a robot and unable to properly improvise or similar statements. I think its a pretty dumb thing to think. Yes its possible to play by ear, without knowing any theory, and knowing theory doesn't make a person a better musician, but it does give you an increased bag of tricks, and a head start on those that don't. I suspect that the bias mostly stems from jealousy (warranted or not)

I definitely agree with you on all accounts, Mitch. I've seen some amazing musicians play with little knowledge of their instruments or music in general, but I fail to buy the "theory stiffles creativity" argument. If anything, I think that it opens up creativity...or at least it does for me. When we wrote our first original (which now that we have a drummer locked in, more originals will be coming *shameless plug!*), I used theory a lot to help come up with my bass parts. I had to get the musical ideas in my head to be actualized on the fretboard and through my cabinet. Having that theoritical road map really helped cut down the writing time. There's one chord of the song that's based around lydian, and I already knew it was lydian before I started putting a bass part there, because I understood the harmonic theory. I could have played around, trying to find that raised 4th that sounded right, but I already knew that the raised 4th would produce the tone I was looking for.

I'm not saying I'm a better player or anything than someone else just because I know the theory behind things, but IME, it does open more doors than it closes. The more cats that you play with, the more situations are you in, and the more you have to be able to adapt to those situations. It's a lot easier doing a fill-in gig and have the band leader look at you and say, "12 bar with I, IV, I, V turn-around in G," and be able to nail that the first time through, than it is to try and muddle your way through it because you don't understand what's going on. It makes me more intuitive. Other people's mileage may vary.

[BDR]

I generally dismiss most formal vocal training.
Other than a precious few "tips" for strengthening, projection, and control, most of what people get from voice teachers, at least on a local level, is bland sameness. Never listen to your chorus teacher, unless your goal is to be sterile, and as caucasian as possible. They teach you to perfectly enunciate every word. Boring. They discourage note bends, and eschew vibrato, because if everybody did that in the choir, it'd be a cacophony of voices doing their own thing. Sorry, I do my own thing. I choose soul over the exasperated demands of someone who thinks "Cats" was genius.
Like a lot of people, I learned how to sing in church. My church was Pentecostal, and the music was the ONLY good thing about it. People truly felt what they were singing, and that's what I'm into. I learned how to connect with the song there. Harmony was learned listening to bluegrass groups... so-called "high lonesome" vocal harmonies are based in gospel, specifically "shape-note" singing popular in the South for a hundred years. I think many of the finest harmony singers in the world are from bluegrass and Southern Gospel, but you knew I'd say that. From the blues and honkytonk, I learned that perfect diction is unnecessary, and makes you sound like Pat Boone... I also learned that pain is an emotion everyone can relate to. From metal, I learned (the hard way) how to take care of your voice, as well as how to bring the power when needed.
Now obviously, I'm not exactly a virtuoso. I think adequate is rather a better term, actually, so your mileage may vary. I've long ago given up on my vocals being my primary instrument, and I'm having a full-out blast trying new instruments and new music.
I'm not formally trained, but like many of us, I can't remember not singing in front of people. That's gotta count for something. As for being told to hit the Zmin7sus4... try me. ------>JMS

A-frikkin-men.

r:>)

[songsmith]

Forgot to mention:
If I could go back to 9th grade music theory class, this time I'd actually pay attention. It was a goldmine, and I totally ignored it. Just because I learn things the hard way, doesn't mean you have to.
I stand by my "local vocal" teacher diss, though.-------->JMS

[BDR]

I stand by my "local vocal" teacher diss, though.-------->JMS

Oh, I agree ... I learned theory from the jr./sr. high school choral director but not my actual delivery. Vocal training disciplined me well as far as hitting and holding unwavering notes and proper breathing techniques but the expectation at that level for singers is the dry, bland sound that you hear at every choral recital you've ever been subjected to, especially if you're a parent.

Your true style and "sound" is the intangible Future Bobby eluded to earlier in the thread. You can either lay that shit down or you can't.

r:>)

[VENTGtr]

...., but IME, it does open more doors than it closes.

Nice to see I Mother Earth used in abbreviated form, even if I'm not so sure of the
application.

A-frikkin-men.

r:>)

ALSO not sure what African Men have to do with any of this.

However, I will say that it's always been interesting to me that the guys in
Rock music who seem to have the least "formal" training also seem to push
the boundaries more so.

McCartney, Hendrix, Page, etc. come to mind. I do think there's something
to be said for people not feeling like they need to follow rules, or who write
something pretty cool then re-think it because it just "seems too simple", etc.

I say that acknowledging full well that I've done so and I've had conversations
with others who have. I can also read music and know a fair bit of theory (I blame
the late 80s guys for this). Not saying that's a hard and fast rule, certainly, but it
is interesting.

Some may retort that Vai and that ilk have a lot of theory behind them, but their
audiences are also more those who would appreciate the technical aspect of
what they do.