Leaderboard

I understand your problem. I play drums and keyboards, and at times sing too and as someone who spent great deal of time on developing independence and coordination required for performing with drums and piano I think I can offer a few advices. Your problem seems to be that you can't relate the singing and playing the guitar properly because they have different rhythmic figures. While that seems as a hard thing to accomplish at first, it is really not, you just need to spend some time figuring out how do the two different rhythms relate to each other. Here is a simple excercise. Take a simple rhythm (straight eights or something like that) and only one chord and strum it continuously while you try to sing on top of that. Shouldn't be too difficult. Now add a slight variation on the guitar rhythm, emphasize every other beat. And try to sing again. If you can, make the rhythm even more complicated. If you can't sing on top of that however, stop, try again and try to realize where exactly in the rhythm or singing you mess up. It will probably be exactly when you try to play that slight variation of the beat. Now isolate that variation and play it until it becomes automatic. Now try to sing something easier on top of that, that doesnt have very prominent rhythmic figures. Once you've accomplished that, try to sing whatever you want. You just need to develop enough independence between you hands and you mind, to automate the playing so to speak, because the singing is much more inherent and sort of built in. Every two rhythms have spots in them where they interweave, and where the syncopation occurs. You need to realize where those spots are. If you have a regular 4/4 rhythm with every first beat accented and have a singing 4/4 rhythm with every 3hrd accented you need to think of it this way: Hand-accent - 2 - voice accent - 4. So don't think about 2 and 4 beats, you will have no problem playing them. Think about where do the accents or variations go, where exactly in time to they interweave and after some practice, when you learn the concept, you will have no problems in almost any simpler rhythm. Complicated playing-singing rhythms demand some balancing between the two, you will find that most players will simplify the playing in order to sing accurately. Hope that helps.

Bravo!! ;)

Do you honestly think Wagner and Mahler KNEW what they were getting into when they propelled the romantic? Do you honestly think Stravinsky and Schoenberg KNEW what they were creating when they propelled the modern? Do you honestly think Cage, Carter, Adams, and Reich honestly KNEW what they were doing when they propelled the post-modern? It was the historians that called Beethoven "The first romantic" and historians that called Duke the "most influential" of the jazz artists of the 20th century. They didn't know it in the act of composing what influence they would have. Music always lags behind or is way ahead of its time, it is never in line with history exactly. Thus, to predict where we're going is impractical. We can hardly agree were we've been and where we are let alone where we're going. Just write. Let the musicologists figure out the macromusical picture.

Eh, first of all composers specially the ones you mentioned were fully aware of what was going on and some (Schoenberg, Wagner) attempted to predict the course of music history with various degrees of success. Hell, Wagner wrote books on things like what a piece of art "should be" and so on. Likewise, grouping Cage, Carter or Reich in the same bag of "postmodernism" makes zero sense; I might as well just include Ravel, Poulenc, Ives, Stravinsky, Penderecki or Ligeti since there's no point to that distinction anymore if you're just naming random names you happen to know that are from the 20th century. Also, of course, Schoenberg and Debussy were directly opposed, even if we label the overall period to be "modern" it's a stupid oversimplification and leads into the mistake of thinking they had anything to do with eachother besides living in the same time period (see also CPE Bach and his influence on the Vienna Classic and the countless composers who lived in the same period as Mozart and Haydn yet are not part of that group.) Second, music is obviously influenced by the other arts, historical events and so on. Likewise, the labels often come from the other arts rather than from music itself (futurism, romanticism, impressionism, are all terms applied to literature and visual arts first, then to music.) It may give the false impression that music is out of sync with things but this is not the case. For example, Schubert representing the "black romantic" in literature with his Winterreise in spite of his labeling as "early romantic," while at the same time in literature it is considered the late romantic. Labels may desync as the meanings of things change from art to art, but that doesn't mean that music exists "ahead" or lags behind of its time. Third, we can surely agree on where we were, as a matter of fact there's an entire field of study dedicated to precisely just that. This is like saying we can "hardly agree" that Napoleon existed, come on now. Don't talk as if all this is nebulous since it quite isn't and we know more about history now than we have ever known in hundreds of years! Not only do we know stuff now, but because of that we can see trends in style and it's much easier to predict what is going to happen than it was for others centuries ago or even decades ago. And finally, I don't see why writing and looking at an overall picture of the state of music are mutually exclusive things. It would be much more intelligent for a composer to be aware and gather as much knowledge as possible from both history and current events than relegate that responsibility to others as if he had nothing to do with it. Doing so would of course automatically lead to an impression of what the overall picture is all the while they can still write whatever they want but of course they would be more informed and better equipped to do whatever they wanted to do.