Why music theory is important -but not the usual reasons

davidKOS

not posting these days
May 28, 2012
16,675
California
I like that it has covered some pretty sensitive ground without either side getting into a slanging match. these type of threads in the past have been a little ugly. people seem a lot more reasonable in this.:)

I've learned a lesson...music cannot be judged by any objective standards.

What "my" standards may be could differ drastically from "your" standards, and both are right...for us.

So I will do no more *****ing about nor criticizing styles of music and particular musicians.
 

StratMike10

Dr. Stratster
Silver Member
Apr 8, 2010
12,288
Florida
This discussion has me thinking about what "talent" is.

Miriam Webster says "Natural aptitude or skill" -- Concise enough. But the question is: are you born with talent, or do you develop it because you're intrested in something and practice at it.

I have thought about this quite a bit, and it is simple.

You can be born with great natural ability, but obviously if you don't develop it there will be no results.

You can be born with little natural ability and work very hard to overcome it and achieve good results, but the results will be limited.

One with great natural ability who works very hard at developing that talent will be at the high end of the "greatness" spectrum.


There is a noble (and sometimes angry) school of thought that believes we can overcome our natural limitations and be as great as anyone... but that is a flawed ideal.

Just like anyone who works hard enough at it can be a sprinter or a marathon runner, take someone with the ideal body type to be a sprinter or a marathoner, and they will never be surpassed by the average guy no matter how hard he trains. Same goes for bodybuilding, no matter how hard he had trained, Albert Einstein would have never been able to develop a physique like Arnold Swartzenegger... on the other hand, very few humans, if any, have the high brain complexity and gray matter massiveness that Einstain had, so no matter how much they study, they might never reach the insight that allowed him to envision the curvature of space & time.

Guitar playing-wise, there is a reason some people will never be as fast as Shawn Lane no matter how long the practice for... by the way, Shawn Lane by his own account said he was playing that fast only one year after taking up the guitar.

On the same token, there are natural tendencies/talents/genetics for creativity & writing as well as performance. Bach composed his first simphony by the age of 5, while my 5-year old grandson is just getting past his grunting phase. Some people will argue that the reason is that Bach was exposed to music from a very early time, which is also flawed... thousands upon thousands of kids are exposed as much and more than Bach was, with not a tiny fraction of the results.

Anyway, like the saying goes, Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, very true, but what the saying doesn't clarify is that without that 10%, the other 90% is a a hard effort in futility for the most part.
 

nhsdpl

Senior Stratmaster
Apr 21, 2012
4,190
West Australia
Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything here.

Talent is innate, but it is rarely fully formed, it still requires a lot of work to realize its full potential.

In regard to guitar playing, I believe, with enough effort, that most of us should be able to become competent, and that in itself is a fair achievment; but the talented, those are the ones that stand out, the ones that will catch the ear of the general public, the ones that turn the heads of the merely competent.

Cheers.
 

GuitarAJ

Most Honored Senior Member
May 27, 2011
5,090
Christchurch, New Zealand
I have thought about this quite a bit, and it is simple.

You can be born with great natural ability, but obviously if you don't develop it there will be no results.

You can be born with little natural ability and work very hard to overcome it and achieve good results, but the results will be limited.

One with great natural ability who works very hard at developing that talent will be at the high end of the "greatness" spectrum.


There is a noble (and sometimes angry) school of thought that believes we can overcome our natural limitations and be as great as anyone... but that is a flawed ideal.

Just like anyone who works hard enough at it can be a sprinter or a marathon runner, take someone with the ideal body type to be a sprinter or a marathoner, and they will never be surpassed by the average guy no matter how hard he trains. Same goes for bodybuilding, no matter how hard he had trained, Albert Einstein would have never been able to develop a physique like Arnold Swartzenegger... on the other hand, very few humans, if any, have the high brain complexity and gray matter massiveness that Einstain had, so no matter how much they study, they might never reach the insight that allowed him to envision the curvature of space & time.

Guitar playing-wise, there is a reason some people will never be as fast as Shawn Lane no matter how long the practice for... by the way, Shawn Lane by his own account said he was playing that fast only one year after taking up the guitar.

On the same token, there are natural tendencies/talents/genetics for creativity & writing as well as performance. Bach composed his first simphony by the age of 5, while my 5-year old grandson is just getting past his grunting phase. Some people will argue that the reason is that Bach was exposed to music from a very early time, which is also flawed... thousands upon thousands of kids are exposed as much and more than Bach was, with not a tiny fraction of the results.

Anyway, like the saying goes, Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, very true, but what the saying doesn't clarify is that without that 10%, the other 90% is a a hard effort in futility for the most part.

Well said. +1

I tend to ignore all the talk about talent. I've seen so many people quit various art forms due to doubting themselves, so it annoys me a little. It's such a touchy subject, because natural talent (as you say) comes in so many forms and levels. Steve Vai's talent for composition is no where near as advanced as Bach's...and yet both were/are great composers and both have natural ability.

I think lots of people are lazy about it..."ugh, I have no talent I'm useless"...and they haven't even put in the thousands of hours yet ! :D

You've got a degree of natural ability too, Stratmike...I've seen your video's, and your timing is solid. Some people struggle with timing. See what I mean ?

But there are always those who find things VERY easy. :)
 

pauln

Senior Stratmaster
Sep 14, 2011
2,272
Houston
Whether theory is viewed as the canonical concepts, or formal concepts, or internal representations, or abstractions, etc... theory is the conceptual grasp that conceives music.

I'm going to describe a peculiar idea, that I think has some bearing on this discussion about conceptual theory, talent, art, and music... it's kind of weird, but see what you think about it.

Imagine a dog and think about what kinds of things a dog can do - because you have seen them do it.

A dog can dig a hole in the ground.
A dog can carry or drag a branch or stick from one place to another.
A dog can chew a stick into two parts
A dong can chew the end of a stick until it is sharp

So, a dog has this collection of things he can do.

What you don't see dogs doing is digging a sizable trench,
and chewing sticks to lengths that cover the trench,
putting those long sticks over the trench,
and putting leaved branches over the framework of sticks.
If they did, they would have built themselves a fine shelter.

What you don't see dogs doing is taking sticks chewed sharp and sticking them into the creek bed arraigned like a bottle shaped fence with the open end pointing downstream. If they did, they would have a nice endless supply of captive fish to eat.

Likewise, there are many projects like this all of whose basic steps a dog is PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY capable of doing... especially if a bunch of them work together... but they don't. They are missing the conceptual power to arrange and organize the simple things they CAN do to perform projects they CAN'T conceive.

If your consciousness was put into a dog, you would do all these things and more, using only "dog" actions to get them done... the same dog actions that all the other dogs can do, but don't, because they can't grasp the concepts.

My dog used to lay all her bones in a row on the back porch... maybe she "counted" them by judging the length of the row, maybe to her this was like an artistic composition, but I know that this simple thing was a profound reflection of her intelligent grasp of SOMETHING with meaning to her...

That said, now we take inventory of all the things WE can do, and I suppose that within all those things are the building blocks of things we have yet to come close to conceiving... we have today, right now, the complete set of ACTIONS to do those things, but not the conceptual grasp of how to arrange and organize these actions.

Now, to me, this is both frustrating and hopeful at the same time, as it applies to our future...

One of the few things that we do right is recognize those among us that might be beginning to broaden their conceptual grasp - in all the various areas and institutions of human activity - including music.
 

abracadabra

Most Honored Senior Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,532
UK
I have thought about this quite a bit, and it is simple.

You can be born with great natural ability, but obviously if you don't develop it there will be no results.

You can be born with little natural ability and work very hard to overcome it and achieve good results, but the results will be limited.

One with great natural ability who works very hard at developing that talent will be at the high end of the "greatness" spectrum.


There is a noble (and sometimes angry) school of thought that believes we can overcome our natural limitations and be as great as anyone... but that is a flawed ideal.

Just like anyone who works hard enough at it can be a sprinter or a marathon runner, take someone with the ideal body type to be a sprinter or a marathoner, and they will never be surpassed by the average guy no matter how hard he trains. Same goes for bodybuilding, no matter how hard he had trained, Albert Einstein would have never been able to develop a physique like Arnold Swartzenegger... on the other hand, very few humans, if any, have the high brain complexity and gray matter massiveness that Einstain had, so no matter how much they study, they might never reach the insight that allowed him to envision the curvature of space & time.

Guitar playing-wise, there is a reason some people will never be as fast as Shawn Lane no matter how long the practice for... by the way, Shawn Lane by his own account said he was playing that fast only one year after taking up the guitar.

On the same token, there are natural tendencies/talents/genetics for creativity & writing as well as performance. Bach composed his first simphony by the age of 5, while my 5-year old grandson is just getting past his grunting phase. Some people will argue that the reason is that Bach was exposed to music from a very early time, which is also flawed... thousands upon thousands of kids are exposed as much and more than Bach was, with not a tiny fraction of the results.

Anyway, like the saying goes, Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, very true, but what the saying doesn't clarify is that without that 10%, the other 90% is a a hard effort in futility for the most part.

some good points, but you're talking about 'genius'. I would not describe Jimi Hendrix as a genius, and yet he is one of the pinnacles of the guitar world. there are many shades of ability and achievement.

I think there is a lot of over-simplification of what is a very complex process when it comes to talking about 'talent'. for example,

"Some people will argue that the reason is that Bach was exposed to music from a very early time, which is also flawed... thousands upon thousands of kids are exposed as much and more than Bach was, with not a tiny fraction of the results."

well, that may be true, but it is also true that we are living in two grossly different eras. imagine if there had never been a Bach, and that music had developed separately from him. would it be very different today? would someone else, or a combination of people, not have made the same conceptual advances? and if Bach was born five years ago, would he now be about to compose his first symphony?

there is no doubt that talent - whatever that is, and whatever role genetics has to play in it - is an important ingredient, but there is also a danger of assuming that talent is required to achieve great things. we can and do adapt and learn during our lives, and the changes that we make can have huge effects in the future. this is especially true of the young.

Einstein may not have been likely to ever look like Arnie, but if he had grown up in an environment requiring heavy manual labour, and had also worked on his physique, then his body (although possibly not his hair) would have adapted and he would have looked very different. the same would apply to mental, as well as physical, gymnastics.

another way to look at it: EVH was/is undoubtedly very talented. however, if you look on yt you can find people playing his stuff note-for-note. are they more or less talented than him? I would argue less, as they didn't write those songs, but then again what would be the effect of EVH coming along today, if he had never appeared before? would there be a new guitar revolution? probably not.

so maybe EVH was not only talented but also very lucky to be doing what he did at the right time, and if we had a time machine and transported a yt clone back to the mid-70s, what would be the likelihood of that person having the success of EVH, instead of him?

I think that talent in fact is based in part on genetics, exposure/development in youth, luck, and perhaps most importantly, a subjective view. there have been plenty of scientists, and artists, who have been derided as 'talentless' in their time, but lauded afterwards (often after their death).

'talent' is important, but the perceived lack of, or possession of, talent, should not stop people, especially young people, from trying to achieve their goals. what is most important is dedication and a realistic view of how likely anybody, talented or not, is likely to achieve them.
 

AncientAx

Still hacking ....
Nov 24, 2010
14,806
Maryland
Creativity often trumps talent when making music . The art of taking what skills the musician has and creating something that touches people enough that they want to listen . It's not like hitting a 98 mph fastball or a big league curve . If you do not possess the hand to eye coordination or the reflexes , all the practice and training in the world will not allow you to hit it .
 

StratMike10

Dr. Stratster
Silver Member
Apr 8, 2010
12,288
Florida
Creativity often trumps talent when making music . The art of taking what skills the musician has and creating something that touches people enough that they want to listen . It's not like hitting a 98 mph fastball or a big league curve . If you do not possess the hand to eye coordination or the reflexes , all the practice and training in the world will not allow you to hit it .

Creativity IS a talent.
 

StratMike10

Dr. Stratster
Silver Member
Apr 8, 2010
12,288
Florida
some good points, but you're talking about 'genius'. I would not describe Jimi Hendrix as a genius, and yet he is one of the pinnacles of the guitar world. there are many shades of ability and achievement.

I think there is a lot of over-simplification of what is a very complex process when it comes to talking about 'talent'. for example,

"Some people will argue that the reason is that Bach was exposed to music from a very early time, which is also flawed... thousands upon thousands of kids are exposed as much and more than Bach was, with not a tiny fraction of the results."

well, that may be true, but it is also true that we are living in two grossly different eras. imagine if there had never been a Bach, and that music had developed separately from him. would it be very different today? would someone else, or a combination of people, not have made the same conceptual advances? and if Bach was born five years ago, would he now be about to compose his first symphony?

there is no doubt that talent - whatever that is, and whatever role genetics has to play in it - is an important ingredient, but there is also a danger of assuming that talent is required to achieve great things. we can and do adapt and learn during our lives, and the changes that we make can have huge effects in the future. this is especially true of the young.

Einstein may not have been likely to ever look like Arnie, but if he had grown up in an environment requiring heavy manual labour, and had also worked on his physique, then his body (although possibly not his hair) would have adapted and he would have looked very different. the same would apply to mental, as well as physical, gymnastics.

another way to look at it: EVH was/is undoubtedly very talented. however, if you look on yt you can find people playing his stuff note-for-note. are they more or less talented than him? I would argue less, as they didn't write those songs, but then again what would be the effect of EVH coming along today, if he had never appeared before? would there be a new guitar revolution? probably not.

so maybe EVH was not only talented but also very lucky to be doing what he did at the right time, and if we had a time machine and transported a yt clone back to the mid-70s, what would be the likelihood of that person having the success of EVH, instead of him?

I think that talent in fact is based in part on genetics, exposure/development in youth, luck, and perhaps most importantly, a subjective view. there have been plenty of scientists, and artists, who have been derided as 'talentless' in their time, but lauded afterwards (often after their death).

'talent' is important, but the perceived lack of, or possession of, talent, should not stop people, especially young people, from trying to achieve their goals. what is most important is dedication and a realistic view of how likely anybody, talented or not, is likely to achieve them.

I was merely trying to make a point that there is such a thing as natural born talent, and that it plays a big role.

Certainly (and obviously) there are many degrees between being a born genius and a complete stump.

And certainly, dedication plays a huge role.

A mine might be loaded with gold ore, but without the hard work and effort to extract it, it will remain buried and undiscovered. On the same token, all the hard effort and digging in the world will not get you anything if your mine has no gold. And yes, there is an in-between, there could be just a little gold in your mine and you could spend your whole life digging for a few nuggets.


As far as young people becoming discouraged, there are two sides to that coin. A young man should pursue work in that which he is most suited for. If his goal is to sing like Pavarotti, yet he was born with a tiny nasal voice, he might be better served reconsidering his goals.
 

StratMike10

Dr. Stratster
Silver Member
Apr 8, 2010
12,288
Florida
Whether theory is viewed as the canonical concepts, or formal concepts, or internal representations, or abstractions, etc... theory is the conceptual grasp that conceives music.

Just like the invention of written language launched mankind into a new era of knowledge and formulation of ideas, written music allowed for new era beyond the beating of the drums, blowing a melody out of a flute, and plucking the strings of a lyre.

Without knowing how to read and write one can still be a talented story teller, but one will never be able to compose a literary masterpiece.
 

AncientAx

Still hacking ....
Nov 24, 2010
14,806
Maryland
Creativity IS a talent.

In a sense it is , it is the ability to make something new . But it allows those with lesser technical talent to make great music . K. Richards is a perfect example . There are folks on this forum who technically can play circles around him ,know more about theory etc. etc. but , can they create the quality of music he has created ? Cobain who kind of got trashed a bit in this thread , is another example . To me , that is the cool thing about music !
 

davidKOS

not posting these days
May 28, 2012
16,675
California
In a sense it is , it is the ability to make something new . But it allows those with lesser technical talent to make great music . K. Richards is a perfect example . There are folks on this forum who technically can play circles around him ,know more about theory etc. etc. but , can they create the quality of music he has created ? Cobain who kind of got trashed a bit in this thread , is another example . To me , that is the cool thing about music !

Not to be contrary, but perhaps the guys you mentioned would be (or have been) even BETTER with more technique to use as a tool for their creativity.

I guess to me the ideal is creativity and "talent" expressed through technical standards of excellence in musical craftsmanship.

It can be anything to you.
 

OwnYourTone

Strat-O-Master
Nov 25, 2012
801
Kansas City
Whether theory is viewed as the canonical concepts, or formal concepts, or internal representations, or abstractions, etc... theory is the conceptual grasp that conceives music.

I'm going to describe a peculiar idea, that I think has some bearing on this discussion about conceptual theory, talent, art, and music... it's kind of weird, but see what you think about it.

Imagine a dog and think about what kinds of things a dog can do - because you have seen them do it.

A dog can dig a hole in the ground.
A dog can carry or drag a branch or stick from one place to another.
A dog can chew a stick into two parts
A dong can chew the end of a stick until it is sharp

So, a dog has this collection of things he can do.

What you don't see dogs doing is digging a sizable trench,
and chewing sticks to lengths that cover the trench,
putting those long sticks over the trench,
and putting leaved branches over the framework of sticks.
If they did, they would have built themselves a fine shelter.

What you don't see dogs doing is taking sticks chewed sharp and sticking them into the creek bed arraigned like a bottle shaped fence with the open end pointing downstream. If they did, they would have a nice endless supply of captive fish to eat.

Likewise, there are many projects like this all of whose basic steps a dog is PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY capable of doing... especially if a bunch of them work together... but they don't. They are missing the conceptual power to arrange and organize the simple things they CAN do to perform projects they CAN'T conceive.

If your consciousness was put into a dog, you would do all these things and more, using only "dog" actions to get them done... the same dog actions that all the other dogs can do, but don't, because they can't grasp the concepts.

My dog used to lay all her bones in a row on the back porch... maybe she "counted" them by judging the length of the row, maybe to her this was like an artistic composition, but I know that this simple thing was a profound reflection of her intelligent grasp of SOMETHING with meaning to her...

That said, now we take inventory of all the things WE can do, and I suppose that within all those things are the building blocks of things we have yet to come close to conceiving... we have today, right now, the complete set of ACTIONS to do those things, but not the conceptual grasp of how to arrange and organize these actions.

Now, to me, this is both frustrating and hopeful at the same time, as it applies to our future...

One of the few things that we do right is recognize those among us that might be beginning to broaden their conceptual grasp - in all the various areas and institutions of human activity - including music.

This should be in a book somewhere!
 

mw13068

Most Honored Senior Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,950
Ithaca, NY
Not to be contrary, but perhaps the guys you mentioned would be (or have been) even BETTER with more technique to use as a tool for their creativity.

I guess to me the ideal is creativity and "talent" expressed through technical standards of excellence in musical craftsmanship.

The trouble with the "could be even BETTER" rhetoric is:

1. "Better" means something different to each person
2. There is no way to prove or disprove the assertion

My ideal as far as music goes (with some exceptions, of course) is to know how the musican feels, rather than how the musician thinks.

The balance of the two aspects is a continuum where an illiterate bunch of tribal musicians might be on the "feel" end, and a super tight jazz quartet might be nearer the other "think" end.

I like lots of musicians who would fall at many different places on the continuum, but in general, I'd prefer to listen to the tribal musicans over the jazz quartet.
 

rousejeremy

Senior Stratmaster
Apr 9, 2011
1,055
Toronto
It seems the only people that don't think theory is important are those who don't know it.
In sports the concept of "cross training" has been around for a while. The concept being that focusing on another sport with different requirements from your own can enhance your main sport. In modern MMA fighters study boxing, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Freestyle Wrestling. They lift weights and run. All these things enhance their game.
The greatest guitarists out there will study pretty much every player out their as well. Ninety nine percent of the people who believe music theory doesn't help only play one style, and eighty percent of the time they aren't anything to write home about.
How can studying how music works, and thinking about it in ways other than 12 bar blues and pentatonic scales be bad? Ever heard Pat Metheny play a blues? How can appreciating the voice leading of Bill Evans ruin your creativity? How can being capable of implying different modal colours or chord substitutions make you sound generic? How can reading through Bach's Violin Sonatas and Partitas and noting his use of motifs to build melodies make you worse? These things give you freedom in the same way studying your native language by reading and writing helps put your thoughts in a package that you can convey to others and be understood. Freedom to express yourself. Copying every SRV lick and spending thousands to sound like him is not freedom. All you are expressing is you wish you were someone else.
 

abracadabra

Most Honored Senior Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,532
UK
I was merely trying to make a point that there is such a thing as natural born talent, and that it plays a big role.

Certainly (and obviously) there are many degrees between being a born genius and a complete stump.

And certainly, dedication plays a huge role.

A mine might be loaded with gold ore, but without the hard work and effort to extract it, it will remain buried and undiscovered. On the same token, all the hard effort and digging in the world will not get you anything if your mine has no gold. And yes, there is an in-between, there could be just a little gold in your mine and you could spend your whole life digging for a few nuggets.


As far as young people becoming discouraged, there are two sides to that coin. A young man should pursue work in that which he is most suited for. If his goal is to sing like Pavarotti, yet he was born with a tiny nasal voice, he might be better served reconsidering his goals.

I just think people, in general (i.e. probably not you), put way too much focus on abilities we have or have not been 'born with'. I think most abilities can be learned, and while I'll never pack an opera house, I'm sure that with the right training and direction I could pull off a decent aria. :D

AncientAx used the example of being able to hit a 98mph fastball. well, maybe I could never achieve the hand-eye coordination to do that, but that doesn't mean I could never be a pro baseball player. I've watched enough baseball games to know that many MLB'ers can't do it either. :D
 

davidKOS

not posting these days
May 28, 2012
16,675
California
The trouble with the "could be even BETTER" rhetoric is:

1. "Better" means something different to each person
2. There is no way to prove or disprove the assertion

My ideal as far as music goes (with some exceptions, of course) is to know how the musican feels, rather than how the musician thinks.

The balance of the two aspects is a continuum where an illiterate bunch of tribal musicians might be on the "feel" end, and a super tight jazz quartet might be nearer the other "think" end.

I like lots of musicians who would fall at many different places on the continuum, but in general, I'd prefer to listen to the tribal musicans over the jazz quartet.

Suppose the tribal group just LOOKS like "feel" musicians, but they are playing carefully worked out traditional parts leaned from their elders, which is what many African, Latin American and South Sea Island tribal drum groups do; the jazz band, that seems to be playing intellectual "think" music is actually playing by feeling on music they are improvising in the moment.

It's not so easy, huh?

I do get that "better" is subjective and unproveable, but I meant it in context as in being an even better version of the artist in question, as in , I wonder what Cobain may have written had he a) lived longer and b) knew more chords, scales, form, to draw upon etc.

Didn't Jimi want to study music and learn more formal theory and stuff, near the latter part of his life?

"It seems the only people that don't think theory is important are those who don't know it." - rousejeremy

Perhaps...maybe it's more like the only people that know how important theory are the people that know some.

I'd hate it to be true that some guitarists automatically distrust and dislike anything that is beyond their comport zone in theory or technique, to the point of actively dissing it.

We've all heard complaints that "shredders have no soul" and that "theory makes you less of a feel player"; do those complaints also come from people that can shred and do know theory?

On the bandstand, all that counts is what you play. No one knows if you know a ton of theory or none, but everyone can hear what you play. The sound is the whole thing.

If theory can assist one in sounding "good", great - and if not knowing it helps someone else, great for them.
 

mw13068

Most Honored Senior Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,950
Ithaca, NY
Suppose the tribal group just LOOKS like "feel" musicians, but they are playing carefully worked out traditional parts leaned from their elders, which is what many African, Latin American and South Sea Island tribal drum groups do; the jazz band, that seems to be playing intellectual "think" music is actually playing by feeling on music they are improvising in the moment.

It's not so easy, huh?

Anything is possible.

If anyone in the pro-theory camp has clips of well-studied musicians playing particularly emotional music, I'd like to listen to them. I'm up for having my prejudices changed.
 

stradovarious

Senior Stratmaster
Dec 14, 2010
2,918
Shangri-La
Anything is possible.

If anyone in the pro-theory camp has clips of well-studied musicians playing particularly emotional music, I'd like to listen to them. I'm up for having my prejudices changed.

I hope this helps, how about some Gypsy music. If this doesn't do it, nothing will:
Joshua Bell Ravel Tzigane - YouTube

Josh probably world's mast famous violinist at the moment, Julliard School of Music Masters Degree violin performance).

You don't eve GET IN to Julliard unless you already know theory, and then they teach it to you again anyway!:D

Super nice guy, he played stuff with Sting too, very laid back and cool.
 

stradovarious

Senior Stratmaster
Dec 14, 2010
2,918
Shangri-La
Yeah so embedding is disabled, depending on your browser just click the on-screen link or link above embedded frame to watch the clip on Youtube itself
 


Top