I have been playing bass for a year. I play in a cover band and learned a bunch of songs off tab. I am good considering the time I have been playing with no instruction due to my background as a drummer. I just started taking lessons mainly thoery for about three weeks, and may I add I am glad I learned off tab and can play because thoery is boring at times since I can't apply it yet. It's cool and is helping me already. My question is if you had to learn this all over again what would you do in your approach to help in this process of learning and applying thoery? I can play some scales and am learning the basics but when does the big picture become aparant? How long does it take in order to apply this knowledge to my everyday playing and what should I key on in my studies to make this process easier? If I knew then what I know now kind of thing..thanks for you help!!!!!!!!!!

Play some music that requires you to use theory. Drag out some jazz charts and walk through them or practice soloing over them. You should be able to apply it to your playing as soon as you understand it and have it under your fingers.

Originally posted by RicPlaya
How long does it take in order to apply this knowledge to my everyday playing?

That is so open ended. It depends on a lot of things. If you are playing punk or rock or hardcore, or whathaveyou, you might never actually have to use theory in your everyday playing. If you play jazz, classical, solo things, etc., the theory is a pre-requisite. It depends on what you are doing, and how in-depth you want to take it.

I play mostly rock a little jazz. But goal is to write my own music and no this half heartedly and be proficiant at thoey.

My question is if you had to learn this all over again what would you do in your approach to help in this process of learning and applying thoery?

I was self taught for about 11 years before I started down the righteous path of theory about 3 years ago.
For me, the application of theory became apparent from the day I started learning it, literally.

I found that I already knew, and used, the sounds I was learning the nams for, so theory just helped me 'put names to the faces' so to speak.

If I learnt again, I would study more theory from day one.

Play some music that requires you to use theory. Drag out some jazz charts and walk through them or practice soloing over them. You should be able to apply it to your playing as soon as you understand it and have it under your fingers.

Take ANY song and I guarantee you will be able to apply theory to it on some level or other.

In my opinion, ALL music requires you to understand theory on some level if you want to play music.
If you dont understand how a song works (again on some level) then you are just repeating phrases parrot fashion.

You DO NOT have to play jazz to use theory!!!

..and, apologies ole Jason, just getting out a few jazz charts and walking over them is just not going happen for someone who is having difficulty applying theory! Creating a walking bassline that flows and accurately outlines the changes is far from easy!!

I would suggest taking those songs you already know and relating them to the theory you already know. The theory is in there, believe me!
Then when you get stuck trying to understand how something works, ask your teacher about it :)

Basic theory is just names for the sounds you hear and play - once you understand it you will find yourself applying it every time you play. You probably already are, but just dont recognise it yet :)

When you can follow a jazz keyboardist through multiple changes, you are applying theory.

Later

"You DO NOT have to play jazz to use theory!!!"

As a concurrent response to this, I'd say you do not have to know theory to play jazz. I play jazz and fusion and...

"I found that I already knew, and used, the sounds I was learning the nams for, so theory just helped me 'put names to the faces' so to speak."

...that is a very, very good comment. At some stage you WILL know the ins and outs of theory, but while you probably can't describe them you still know and feel what they are in a song or certain genre. My theory, I've always thought, is abysmal, but I pick out what sounds nice or feels right, which I find much more enlightening than instead working out what LOGICALLY would fit somewhere.

Originally posted by genesis6891
"You DO NOT have to play jazz to use theory!!!"

As a concurrent response to this, I'd say you do not have to know theory to play jazz. I play jazz and fusion and...



Can you play Rhythm Changes in Db? Can you play a blues like "Blues for Alice" in G? Do you understand the difference between "Blues for Alice" and "All Blues"?

You've really got to know theory to play jazz...

Originally posted by RicPlaya
I have been playing bass for a year. I play in a cover band and learned a bunch of songs off tab. I am good considering the time I have been playing with no instruction due to my background as a drummer. I just started taking lessons mainly thoery for about three weeks, and may I add I am glad I learned off tab and can play because thoery is boring at times since I can't apply it yet. It's cool and is helping me already. My question is if you had to learn this all over again what would you do in your approach to help in this process of learning and applying thoery? I can play some scales and am learning the basics but when does the big picture become aparant? How long does it take in order to apply this knowledge to my everyday playing and what should I key on in my studies to make this process easier? If I knew then what I know now kind of thing..thanks for you help!!!!!!!!!!

Modern harmony ,Theory is a finite science. Some pretty incredible educators already have done thee work for you. It is easy,simple and you really know theory because you know what sounds right.

There are three chord funtions:

ii-V-I

there are 9 chord familes-vertical stacks of notes..there are scale sources which work with these vertical stacks. The stacks are created out of these scales being restricted to modes that are stacked on top of each other. When you see a d mi. 7 (b5) for instance ,you start to think F melodic minor as a scale source. You need to hear the scale and the chord as a "color".

there 119 basic chord progressions that fit into basic song forms,aaba ,verse/chorus etc.

The sections of songs are made out of 2, 4 ,8 and 16 bar phrases. Everything comes back to ii-V-I. Seek out Dick Grove or Jamie Abersold books on theory. When you can identify all of the above with just your ears,you'll be on the rightt track.

The rest is learning as many tunes as possible ,and soloing over the changes ,substituting chords and learning styles of music.

"Can you play Rhythm Changes in Db? Can you play a blues like "Blues for Alice" in G? Do you understand the difference between "Blues for Alice" and "All Blues"?

You've really got to know theory to play jazz..."

Yes, yes and yes :) The point I made further on in my post was that whilst you may not be able to explain the ins and outs of theory, you still know it (in a sense) when you're playing. My modal knowledge is pretty scrappy but in the midst of a song, or in the centre of a set of a challenging chord progression, I still know what I can play, because I know and hear every note before I play it and what will sound suitable. People just have different approaches, that's all.

Personally I've enjoyed teaching myself and listening to music a lot so that I can concentrate on music itself - the sound, the notes, harmonies and things like that. I never enjoyed the thought or prospect of having to learn music through books or along symbols on manuscript paper (my sight reading is adequate but I just don't like playing like this!), so as I quoted in my first post, if you sometime do get to know what the phrases and terms are for certain progressions are, chances are you already knew them, but by sound and note rather than just a term. This is how I prefer to learn, rather than know everything by a definition or phrase. This may not be easier but I just think that latter technique over complicates something (music) which should not be about complication but enjoyment.

Originally posted by Pacman
Can you play Rhythm Changes in Db? Can you play a blues like "Blues for Alice" in G? Do you understand the difference between "Blues for Alice" and "All Blues"?

You've really got to know theory to play jazz...

Actually, I've known more than a few cats that haven't a clue about theory, and can do all of the above. Granted, once they've heard the tune.

But I understand your point, Pacman. Chances are you (meaning anyone) are not one of these cats.

But RicPlaya...you ask "when", and the answer is different for everyone. But my advice to you is to think in terms of years of study, practice, and more importantly playing, rather than expecting noticable results in weeks or months.

Like the other said, i know myself im applying theory to my playing, however, i dont really know what im doing, i know what notes to play, and what notes i can play instead of just playing the root note, however i dont know names of what im doing. Which to me, is fine,because im having fun adding (what i think) are 'better' basslines to songs, but what i think is better joe random might think is crap.

yeah-this is something you might want to think about.- it depends on what your goals are. If you want to "speak" the language of music ,it requires a "big ear". if you want to be able to play something the instant you hear it ,theen you need to know it before you hear it.

a key element is ear training. Recognizing intervals and chords the instant you hear them is crucial to being a great player. If you hear a chord played on a cd, you should be able to say "that's and E13 (+11) with the Bb in the bass'" . When you hear a bass line ,or see it written ,it should be as easy as reading this and hearing the words spoken in your head. The 7 (+9) chord has a sound you've heard countless times, same with a 7 (b9) or a minor 7 (b5).

This is why it is essential to learn the nine chord families ,their horizontal counterparts-the corresponding scales , recognize how each of these chord families FUNCTION in a tune- either as a ii , a V or a I chord.

As a bassist ,play with pianists who like to use lots of chord susbstitutions so you can hear how different players re harmonize the same old tunes. You will find that after a while , it's the same chord progressions used over and over.

I used to practice the 7 different "modes" as scales. For example, in the key of C, I'd start with C "ionian", then D "dorian", E "prygian", and finish with C "ionian". Boring. Then I'd do the same thing for the minor key (A "aeolian", B "locrian", etc., back to A "aeolian"). Still boring. Repeat above in all keys. Major boring!

When instead of practicing those as scales, I instead would "jam" (alone) switching between modes (basically "chord changes"), I found I immediately began to apply the modes in "real life". It also made me think more about chord progressions - some sequences of modes sound good, some bad. Using the 4th and 6th degree of a mode sparingly (only in stepwise "runs") helps a lot (stick with 1/3/5/7 generally). Doing this with a drum machine (Hammerhead for PC - it's free) is fun! I usually just "jam" while watching TV without the drum machine, though...

As a drummer, you've got a major edge, though. If your rhythm is really good, notes hardly matter (by comparison - folks eventually catch on if you're not sort-of on-key).

Originally posted by Ninestring
yeah-this is something you might want to think about.- it depends on what your goals are. If you want to "speak" the language of music ,it requires a "big ear". if you want to be able to play something the instant you hear it ,theen you need to know it before you hear it.

a key element is ear training. Recognizing intervals and chords the instant you hear them is crucial to being a great player. If you hear a chord played on a cd, you should be able to say "that's and E13 (+11) with the Bb in the bass'" . When you hear a bass line ,or see it written ,it should be as easy as reading this and hearing the words spoken in your head. The 7 (+9) chord has a sound you've heard countless times, same with a 7 (b9) or a minor 7 (b5).

This is why it is essential to learn the nine chord families ,their horizontal counterparts-the corresponding scales , recognize how each of these chord families FUNCTION in a tune- either as a ii , a V or a I chord.

As a bassist ,play with pianists who like to use lots of chord susbstitutions so you can hear how different players re harmonize the same old tunes. You will find that after a while , it's the same chord progressions used over and over.

Great post! The whole she-bang needed to be repeated!

Originally posted by PhilMan99
...while watching TV...

If your rhythm is really good, notes hardly matter (by comparison - folks eventually catch on if you're not sort-of on-key).

:eek:

Don't mean to get on your case, PhilMan...but quite frankly you're very wrong about this.

First of all, there's certainly nothing wrong with hanging in front of the TV with your bass in your hands..."jammimg". Any time spent playing isn't totally wasted. But don't fool yourself into thinking you're actually practicing. Learning the language of music and (especially) training your ear requires your undivided attention.

Your last statement leaves me speechless.

Well another side of sitting infront of your TV with bass in hand can be useful. I play along with every piece of music I hear. Film scores ,commercial music beds , sweeps ,TV themes-it really is fun to see how quickly you c
can play what you hear. You can also find out how many times you hear the same chord progressions ,chord voicings etc.

It takes years of practice, playing, and listening to all types of music, different instruments, and different types of music. If you like jazz, listen to some rock. If you like rock, listen to some classical, etc. Analyze how the different instruments fit in the mix. Then evaluate your own feelings and motivations for playing.

I have fun playing all kinds of music. Just remember the musician's role ... play the right note at the right time. Only a deep knowledge of music (theory, ear training, depth of music repretoire ) can tell you what note and when to play.

Originally posted by PhilMan99
I used to practice the 7 different "modes" as scales. For example, in the key of C, I'd start with C "ionian", then D "dorian", E "prygian", and finish with C "ionian". Boring. Then I'd do the same thing for the minor key (A "aeolian", B "locrian", etc., back to A "aeolian"). Still boring. Repeat above in all keys. Major boring!

When instead of practicing those as scales, I instead would "jam" (alone) switching between modes (basically "chord changes"), I found I immediately began to apply the modes in "real life". It also made me think more about chord progressions - some sequences of modes sound good, some bad. Using the 4th and 6th degree of a mode sparingly (only in stepwise "runs") helps a lot (stick with 1/3/5/7 generally). Doing this with a drum machine (Hammerhead for PC - it's free) is fun! I usually just "jam" while watching TV without the drum machine, though...

As a drummer, you've got a major edge, though. If your rhythm is really good, notes hardly matter (by comparison - folks eventually catch on if you're not sort-of on-key).

I am learning the modes now I will try this! cool thanks

quote:
This is why it is essential to learn the nine chord families ,their horizontal counterparts-the corresponding scales , recognize how each of these chord families FUNCTION in a tune- either as a ii , a V or a I chord

I have no clue what this is?

Originally posted by RicPlaya
quote:
This is why it is essential to learn the nine chord families ,their horizontal counterparts-the corresponding scales , recognize how each of these chord families FUNCTION in a tune- either as a ii , a V or a I chord

I have no clue what this is?

It's modern harmony and theory in "a nutshell"
if I were starting over,I would find a way to simplify and condense harmony and theory.
The major scale is created by isolating ,or restricting tones from the chromatic scale. Two whole steps,a half step,three whole steps and then a half step is the "formula".You start on any note and by "measuring 1-1-1/2-1-1-1-1/2 , you always get the major scale. By starting a major scale on the 3rd degree, you create a phrygian mode.By starting the major scale on the 5th degree, you get the mixolydian mode.By starting the major scale on the 7th degree ,you get locrian.

If you pile the phrygian on top of it's major scale, the mixolydian on top of that,and the locrian on top of that , you have created the diatonic four part chords of that major scale


Ex.
locrian : b-c-d-e-f-g-a-b-

mixolydian g-a -b-c-d-e-f-g

phrygian; e-f-g-a-b-c-d-e


Major: c-d-e-f-g-a-b-c
I- ii-iii-iv- V-vi-vii

You have Cmaj7th ,the one (I) chord in the key of C ,and d minor 7 (ii mi7) the two (ii) chord in C major ,and G7 (V) the five chord .These are the definitive chords of C major. They are vertical results of stacking horizontal scales. These three chords are three of the nine chord families that define tonality. You don't have a tune without the ii-V-I "gravity."



ii or iv will lead to V7 and it always resolves to I. Some chord progression you must know are I-vi-ii-V7-I (cmaj-ami-dmi-g7-cmaj ) or iv-V7-I (f-g7-c) .

So if you learn all nine chord families,or vertical stacks ,the horizontal scales that stack up to make these chords, learn how each stack funtions (ii ,V or i) and recognize the function in a progression (i-vi-ii-V7-i) , you are grasping the essence of Theory.. What good is knowing modes and their names if 1) you can't identify them by ear, and 2) knowing how they relate to music theory?

Every bass note you play is part of a chord progression .Knowing chord progressions allows you to know what notes come next .The quality of the chord, a ii or a V or a i ,tells you what chord family you are currently playing through and what your harmonic choices are.
"This" is an overview of what it is you need to know.

Originally posted by RicPlaya
quote:
This is why it is essential to learn the nine chord families ,their horizontal counterparts-the corresponding scales , recognize how each of these chord families FUNCTION in a tune- either as a ii , a V or a I chord

I have no clue what this is?

One of the approaches to bass-playing involves learning ALL the chords so you can do them "in your sleep with your eyes closed". Unless you're interested in knowing the letter names C-E-G-B, etc, it becomes similar to learning the scales/modes, except you focus more on the application of the chord tones (1-3-5, etc.), than practicing scale patterns. Naturally, remembering all the letter names (C-E-G-B, C#-E#-G#-B#, etc.) takes longer than just learning the patterns for all the chords. And just to confuse matters, there *IS* an E# and a B# in standard notation for some keys...:rolleyes:

Hey dudes

I thought I'd chime in here. RE the original question; theory can become relevant very early in your playing. If you have a basic idea of the root movement of the progression then a knowledge of theory can make your lines so much more expressive. You don't have to play jazz of fusion etc to be able to apply theory but it does help.

A good example is myself. I started studying jazz 2 years ago. While I had a resonable technical facility on the instrument I wasn't great. Since I've learnt theory I've played support for major local jazz bands and played with some amazing musicans. The most important thing is that my ear IS NOT GREAT but I've been able to do this. OBVIOUSLY having a good ear is going to help you immencely but for me it put a lot of useful notes in my grasp so I could use them straght away. I hope this helps

Ben

PS For anyone who cares I really want to train my ears to the point I can play what I currently can without needing a chord progression. Yeah baybeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Thanks everyone!

Originally posted by Ninestring
You don't have a tune without the ii-V-I "gravity....


...ii or iv will lead to V7 and it always resolves to I...



These two statements, while well intentioned, go a bit too far. It is certainly possible to "have a tune" without having the "ii-V-I gravity", and V does not always lead to I.

I like resolving the V to a diminished chord built on the leading tone to end songs.

If you hear a chord played on a cd, you should be able to say "that's and E13 (+11) with the Bb in the bass'" . When you hear a bass line ,or see it written ,it should be as easy as reading this and hearing the words spoken in your head. The 7 (+9) chord has a sound you've heard countless times, same with a 7 (b9) or a minor 7 (b5).

I agree, and I fully recognise the importance of having a finely tuned ear... But!!!

I can hear the average bassline and usually play it to a satisfactory standard, if not perfectly, within a few minutes, and I can figure out a chord progression from most pieces of popular music in much the same time... I can hear a basic turnaround etc etc
I cant hear a chord and tell you the precise tones and I've been playing nearly 14 years!

What you're describing is is a very high level of musicianship... and is probably scary as hell to someone just starting out! Maybe just recgonising major from minor would be a good start point! :)

All I'm saying is let's not scare the guy half to death! You dont have to be able to notate an extended chord by ear to be a great musician!! :)

...theory can become relevant very early in your playing. If you have a basic idea of the root movement of the progression then a knowledge of theory can make your lines so much more expressive.

Absolutley. A an understanding of root movement and what it actually is, how root movement makes a song work and therefore what the role of bass is is theory in itself!!!!
I'd say start at the beginning rather than jumping in at the deep end with frikkin Eb7b5+9 chords!!! :D


It is certainly possible to "have a tune" without having the "ii-V-I gravity", and V does not always lead to I.

So what?

Originally posted by Howard K


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is certainly possible to "have a tune" without having the "ii-V-I gravity", and V does not always lead to I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So what?



Perhaps you think I'm Freeloading on the works of others, and ignoring the Milestones of so many composers who used the "ii-V-I gravity" so well, but I'm not just being Black and Narcissistic here - when I look into my Infant son's Eyes, I see truths that go beyond so many pedantic declarations one may find in print. All one need do to escape the ii-V-I gravity is to embark on the Maiden Voyage of jazz past 1950, and one can Naima quite a large number of tunes devoid of this gravity.

Anyway, those are just my Impressions...

No no, I actually meant so what? :D


Show off :rolleyes:

:)

Everything is ii-V-I in tonal music. If that is scary,SO WHAT? It doesn't get any more basic than that." So What?" is not helping this guy with theory.

All that JAZZ in the 1950's all the abstractness still had funtion.that defines the music's emotional contour. When those musicians do other gigs, do you think they ever play a d mimor 7 or a G7 or a C major 7? Every song on the radio has a ii or a V or a I chord being played at any given moment

ii-V-I is the definition of a key area.it also represents motion, peak and resolution. all of abstract stuff has those elements


The thread was dealing with learning theory.The guy starting the thread didn't mention 1950 and later abstract modern jazz.

my earlier post does break down theory to it's most basic elements. Although it is limited to major tonality,it is a simple as it gets.It's what you need to extract from any theory book.I posted what I did because it's saying theory isn't scary.it is simple,easy and you can do it.

if I were to start over learning theory,I would first determine what my musical goals are. If you want to show up to every audition, gig,rehearsal etc. and know everything that is being played instantly,learn theory .

Originally posted by Ninestring

Every song on the radio has a ii or a V or a I chord being played at any given moment...

You don't have a tune without the ii-V-I "gravity."...


ii or iv will lead to V7 and it always resolves to I....

I'm not trying to argue your basic points, only your persistent use of absolutes. The things you mention are very common, but they are musical tendencies, not absolutes. BTW, the local classical music station is playing Bartok's "Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste" at the moment...not to rain on your parade, but I don't hear any ii-V-I's in there.

All I'm saying is that it's probably best not to speak of music in terms of absolutes, since to do so is inherently false (as the exceptions to the rules tend to prove).

SO WHAT? It doesn't get any more basic than that." So What?" is not helping this guy with theory.



It's helping the young gentleman in question quite a bit if he learns that it is also possible to write and perfrom great music that doesn't conform to "the rules". In my opinion, of course. :)

Every chord Bartok wrote functions as a 11 , a V or a I. That's what happens with the 12 tone system.

For anything anyone is going to do ,any style ,era,artist-you can't escape tonal law.


Every piece of musi -unless it is Harry Partch or Xenoxis and using 31 tones per octave or Jusat intonation follows basic. chord function.

It is as absolute as the law of gravity-and 99% of any good to excellent musicians know this.

I'd like to get you you in the studio with the guys I do TV and Film sesions with and see how your concept holds up.

I was a student of Dick Grove,Jamie Faunt and Chic Corea and went throughJamie Abersold's Books just to name a few. Why don't you contact them,and tell them theory is not absolute?

Originally posted by Ninestring
Every chord Bartok wrote functions as a 11 , a V or a I. That's what happens with the 12 tone system.


No offense, but in my opinion that statement is completely wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. For one thing, Bartok didn't write 12-tone music, although he did write quite a bit of non-serial atonality. What he often did was to turn the "rules" of consonance and dissonance on their heads as regards counterpoint when he felt like it. Beyond that, he claims in his writings and interviews (and I tend to believe him) that he simply wrote what he heard. Now, if you want to listen to his 4th string quartet and point out how each vertical sonority is functioning as a ii, a V, or a I, be my guest...but you'll be hard pressed to convince many folks who know his music well to agree with your take on his harmony, and harder pressed to keep these same folks from laughing at the notion.

Also, to suggest that the serialists of the second Viennese school who actually did write serial music (i.e. - Schoenberg, Anton Webern, and to a lesser extent, Alban Berg) were really writing nothing more than a bunch of ii, V, and I chords is - in my opinion - one of the more ludicrous statements I've heard in recent memory. But suit yourself.

For anything anyone is going to do ,any style ,era,artist-you can't escape tonal law.

So if you try to escape it, the music police will come and get you? You'd better send 'em over in droves to Africa then - before the European folks got there, all known indigenous African music contained only incidental harmony, and not too much of that - and it sure wasn't "ii-V-I", either. Sounds like the Chorale Cops have got some serious work ahead of them if they want to enforce this law. While you're at it, send a couple of platoons over to India too, so they can clean up all of the traditional non-westernized musicians over there who stubbornly keep ignoring these "absolute laws of gravity".


Every piece of musi -unless it is Harry Partch or Xenoxis and using 31 tones per octave or Jusat intonation follows basic. chord function.

It is as absolute as the law of gravity-and 99% of any good to excellent musicians know this.

I disagree. Strongly. Send one of the boys in blue out to get me... I confess!

I'd like to get you you in the studio with the guys I do TV and Film sesions with and see how your concept holds up.

I'd like that too. I suspect I'd do just fine, since I never claimed that I can't or don't play tonal music and/or traditional jazz...I'm only saying that there's more out there than that if you care to look for it.


I was a student of Dick Grove,Jamie Faunt and Chic Corea and went throughJamie Abersold's Books just to name a few. Why don't you contact them,and tell them theory is not absolute?

Name dropping now? Oh, that's lovely. In the first place, that's a pretty cheesy way to bolster your point...you "went through Jamie Aebersold's Books just to name a few?". Yes, and so have half the high school jazz players in the country, as those are useful books if you use them right. In the second place, Chick spells his first name with a "K" on the end, and Jamey uses "ey" instead of "ie". In the third place, Jamey will be the first one to tell you that theory is not absolute, and that you should play what you hear rather than what you THINK...I've heard him say it many times.

Look, I teach theory for a living, so I'll be the last one to come out and say that it's useless. But to say that all V7 chords do such and such, or that Bartok's quartets are really just a bunch of ii-V-I's because everything is all about ii, V, and I is just plain absurd. The only reason I posted here in the first place in response to your posts (much of which I find very helpful) was to point out that your points would be better served by claiming that most______ chords TEND to resolve ______ way. Once you do that, the statements are entirely reasonable. But as it is, many of these claims are completely unsupportable. You want me to name 20 instances where a V7 chord does not resolve directly to I? That would be pretty easy, no matter what style we were talking about.

Everything is ii-V-I in tonal music. If that is scary,SO WHAT? It doesn't get any more basic than that."
So What?" is not helping this guy with theory

"So what" was a pun, kind of like a joke!

You see, it doesnt have the standard II-V-I (Although, could you say that the semi-tone drop in the root simulates a resolve based on a tritone sub of the V, so the Eb-7 acts as a bII to teh D-7 as an i chord - ???)

Anyway, the name of the song is the joke, "so what", do you see? ;)

So What?" is not helping this guy with theory

IMO, neither does telling a guy is just starting out on theory that:
If you hear a chord played on a cd, you should be able to say "that's and E13 (+11) with the Bb in the bass'".

That's just over the top and unneccessary at this stage, IMO of course.

I was a student of Dick Grove,Jamie Faunt and Chic Corea and went through Jamie Abersold's Books just to name a few. Why don't you contact them,and tell them theory is not absolute?

Well I've heard of Chick Corea, but not Dick Grove or Jamie Faunt... and I'm working my way through some Aebersold books right now as it happens! :)

Anyway, I play with my my mate Dave almost every week, except when his Mrs makes him do DIY, and he knows loads of theory and stuff and he says you're wrong :D

interesting discussion!

and I don't want to derail it (too much), but it got me wondering your thoughts on whether harmonic relations such as ii-V-I are learnt, or something we're naturally attuned to

I can see the possibility we emerge from the womb with an innate feel for tension & resolution (a big part of it is pure physics.. wave interaction etc)

but at the same time, we've all listened to music from other cultures and sometimes the harmonic language just isn't something you can compute - but people born & raised in that culture appear to dig it right away

I know one can increase one's harmonic vocabulary to the point where once-tenuous relationships can make sense (exactly why some jazz can sound like 'a bunch of out of tune nonsense' to people who don't know the idiom) but surely the basics of harmony like ii-V-I are stuff people 'get' immediately? aren't they?

nature or nurture?

nature or nurture?

Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Ok-so you don't work alot. So I suggest you pick the last 1000 top teh hits,film scores ,jingles, production music libraries or any musi other than the obscure,isolated music you have mentioned and show me where a one,two or five chord hasn't been played,

Do you guys ever do "gigs;"? Are you telling me the music never has a two or five or one chord ?

Who cares how someone spells their name, you know who I mean-the guy who started this thread-if he was going in the direction of Berg,or Schoenberg or Stravinsky-would he be on Talk bass asking for input ? Any electric bass player alive knows that the electric bass is used in pop, jazz,shows , etc. not 20th century orchestral music.

Once again- everything in popular music: the songs on the radio which include Country,R& B, Rock, Funk,Jazz, Broadway musicals, N'Sync, Brittany Spears, Stevie Wonder or Elvis or Frank Sinatra or ten thousand other recording artist rely on ii-V-I. Every song you play on a gig does.

It is what makes music work. It's what you guys who want to learn theory must know.

Once again:

There are 9 vertical chord stacks or chord families. They cover the major and minor keys.each of the 9 chord families funtion as a ii or a V or a i chord. These functions end up having 119 chord progressions which you have heard a million times.The vertical stacks have horizontal scales thaat work as a melody and solo source for the chor stacks. The chord progressions fit into phttases, 2,4,8,16etc. The phrases fit into a song form such as A,A,B,A or verse/chorus. Styles of music determine the 'feel" and groove. Rhumba,Rock ,Cha Cha,swing,Punk, alternative all use the same elements. There is quarter,eigth,sixteen and triplet feels. either you can play anything and read anything,or you musically are illiterate.

This is the real stuff that any real musicians know and rely on. why try so hard to make me look like an idiot when it's not me,but reality you are fighting ? This isn't my idea, but thousands of pros who do this all the time.

I agree with Chris here 100%

To say that all V7 chords resolve is a severely flawed statement.

You only have to look at a jazz 12 bar blues to see that dominant chords can also be used soley as a tonal flavour. Not just as a pivot point for a dominant resolution.

And ive lost count of the amount of funk songs ive played on that have had the progression: 1V7---|2V7--- (c7, d7)...........No dominant resolution there either, just a tonal flavour that many musicians enjoy.

The mathematics of music are an extremely helpful composition tool, and imo should be learnt by everyone. Only laziness prevents this from happening .......But without rules being broken, there would never be any progression

Ok-so you don't work alot.So I suggest you pick the last 1000 top teh hits,film scores ,jingles, production music libraries or any musi other than the obscure,isolated music you have mentioned and show me where a one,two or five chord hasn't been played,

I dont work at all! I'm an amateur! I suppose that makes my opinion less valid, oh well :(

Are you telling me the music never has a two or five or one chord ?

Not at all. Just that not ALL music uses a II-V-I. Hence "So What"!

Every song you play on a gig does.
What, every single one? Surley not?!

Originally posted by cowsgomoo
interesting discussion!

and I don't want to derail it (too much), but it got me wondering your thoughts on whether harmonic relations such as ii-V-I are learnt, or something we're naturally attuned to

I can see the possibility we emerge from the womb with an innate feel for tension & resolution (a big part of it is pure physics.. wave interaction etc)

but at the same time, we've all listened to music from other cultures and sometimes the harmonic language just isn't something you can compute - but people born & raised in that culture appear to dig it right away

I know one can increase one's harmonic vocabulary to the point where once-tenuous relationships can make sense (exactly why some jazz can sound like 'a bunch of out of tune nonsense' to people who don't know the idiom) but surely the basics of harmony like ii-V-I are stuff people 'get' immediately? aren't they?

nature or nurture?


This is why I ask,what is your musical goal. I post here because i want to make a point. If you can't play something and anticipate where it;s going next the instant you here it,you are not enjoying the language of music. It is satisfying to play a song you don't know, but can play it anyway because you hear where it is going. It's like going to Japan ,and speaking and understanding Japanese. If you want to be a bass player then you have to consider these concepts. The same goes for sight reading. And I ask "what are your musical goals? ". If it is to work professionally ,knowing this stuff is a must.

Theory isn't hard,or scarey. -I will help anyone who wants to learn theory as it applies to modern music. If you find theory to be overwhelming,send me an email and I will help you/

it's pretty obvious that not every piece of music contains a chord sequence of ii-V-I, that's probably not the issue...

i spose the issue is whether the 'laws' regarding how western harmony works and how chords function are the same for every piece of music in all circumstances... i.e. a 7 chord always 'means' a 7 chord to everyone and whether its resolution (doesn't necessarily have to be to a I chord in order to be appropriate... in fact it doesn't even HAVE to resolve to still work)

i'm inclined to agree with the statement "everything is ii-V-I in tonal music", IF that statement means that the ii-V-I structure is a fundamental, inescapable building block of our tonal vocabulary, and whether it's 'Naima' or 'Pop Goes The Weasel', the music works because of our inherent understanding of this framework and to what extent the chords follow/disregard this structure

after all... a 'weird' sounding chord sequence wouldn't sound 'weird' if there wasn't a set idea in people's minds about what chords traditionally do :)

I'll agree that the V-I movement, whether it be diatonic, or whether it be a v7 that resolves to an unrelated tonal centre, is a major building block for contemporary music. Not the be all and and all, but certainly a huge part of how contemporary music is constructed these days. However, i disagree that the ii chord has as much relevance, or importance as the v or the i. In the concept of ii v i, the ii chord is not much more than a pivot chord that allows for a smoother transition into the v chord, i dont see it as being a building block for contemporary music

i iv v i has made a much larger imapct than ii v i imo. But i still wouldnt classify the iv chord as a building block.

But hey, thats just the way i see it .....just an educated opinion....but you know what they say about opinions........

Major 3rds are Evil

I must say find this mildy offensive and rather unneccessary! Some of my best friends are major thirds and they regularly help me out in times of need.

it's pretty obvious that not every piece of music contains a chord sequence of ii-V-I, that's probably not the issue...

I'm not entirely sure what the issue is myself. Ninestring was saying that all music is based on we II-V-I, some people disagreed, and here we are.
Not that any if it actually matters. I'm sure we've outcast the original poster by now anyway :)

Originally posted by Ninestring
Ok-so you don't work alot.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or is it just a coincidence? Where do you get the idea that I don't work a lot? I work plenty...what I don't do is post my "resume" in every other post here as if dropping names is somehow going to make my point more credible, which it won't if the argument doesn't stand on its own. We have a thing on this site called a PROFILE, which is the appropriate place to put resume-type info for anyone who wants to see it. Before you assume that someone doesn't work or doesn't know what they are talking about, you might try clicking on their PROFILE before talking trash about what that person does or doesn't do or know.


So I suggest you pick the last 1000 top teh hits,film scores ,jingles, production music libraries or any musi other than the obscure,isolated music you have mentioned and show me where a one,two or five chord hasn't been played,

How about any top 10 rap number? I'm not a fan of rap at all, but IT EXISTS, IT'S POPULAR, and it often CONTAINS NO HARMONY AT ALL. Where there is no harmony, where are all of the ii, V, and I chords? There aren't any. Duh.

And the "obscure, isolated music I have mentioned" was only mentioned because you insisted that Every song on the radio has a ii or a V or a I chord being played at any given moment... , and that, You don't have a tune without the ii-V-I "gravity.".... I provided those examples in an effort to steer the conversation away from absolute statements, and you come back with more absolute statements without ever answering my question about "what about all of these exceptions to the "rules" you posted?". Nice. Very nice. :rolleyes:


Do you guys ever do "gigs;"? Are you telling me the music never has a two or five or one chord ?

Yes. Again, see "PROFILES". And again, of course the music is full of ii-V-I's. but, YET AGAIN, NOT EVERY SINGLE SONG has them. Reading is fine, but how about comprehension?

Who cares how someone spells their name, you know who I mean...

Who cares how someone who is blatantly name-dropping spells the names he is dropping? I do. If you are trying to elicit the impression of a close association with a person, and you can't even spell their name correctly, it says a lot more about your actual association with that person than your attempt to bring your argument up by mentioning them. How would it look if I said that I had studied with Ruefuss Read?

(Hint: it would look like I didn't know him at all)


-the guy who started this thread-if he was going in the direction of Berg,or Schoenberg or Stravinsky-would he be on Talk bass asking for input ? Any electric bass player alive knows that the electric bass is used in pop, jazz,shows , etc. not 20th century orchestral music.

He was asking for theory input. You told him that ALL music ALWAYS does _______. I pointed out that this was untrue, and posted a list of exceptions such as 20th century orchestral music, traditional African and Indian music, and much Rap. You then proceeded to have a cow, but refused to admit that the words, "ALL", "ALWAYS", and "EVERY" are probably not the best ones to use in a discussiion like this.. So you tell me, who's trying to mislead who?

Once again- everything in popular music: the songs on the radio which include Country,R& B, Rock, Funk,Jazz, Broadway musicals, N'Sync, Brittany Spears, Stevie Wonder or Elvis or Frank Sinatra or ten thousand other recording artist rely on ii-V-I. Every song you play on a gig does.

Since you haven't been at any of my gigs, I'd have to call this another completely unsubstantiated statement, since I play tunes that don't do this regularly, and in fact listed a goodly number of them in response to one of Howard K's posts. The fact that you claim to know things that you could not possibly know and cannot substantiate does not reflect well on your arguments. So why not just relax a bit and admit that it would be better to say "MOST" instead of "EVERY"? I honsestly don't see what's so complicated about that.

It is what makes music work. It's what you guys who want to learn theory must know.

Once again:

There are 9 vertical chord stacks or chord families. They cover the major and minor keys.each of the 9 chord families funtion as a ii or a V or a i chord. These functions end up having 119 chord progressions which you have heard a million times.The vertical stacks have horizontal scales thaat work as a melody and solo source for the chor stacks. The chord progressions fit into phttases, 2,4,8,16etc. The phrases fit into a song form such as A,A,B,A or verse/chorus. Styles of music determine the 'feel" and groove. Rhumba,Rock ,Cha Cha,swing,Punk, alternative all use the same elements. There is quarter,eigth,sixteen and triplet feels. either you can play anything and read anything,or you musically are illiterate.

This is the real stuff that any real musicians know and rely on. why try so hard to make me look like an idiot...

I must protest and give credit where it is due - you are doing most of the work when it comes to this last point. :)

Originally posted by Ninestring
Ok-so you don't work alot.

and


Do you guys ever do "gigs;"? Are you telling me the music never has a two or five or one chord ?



I'd be willing to bet I do more dates a year than you do, Sparky.

Ok, I wanted to make sure Chris and Pac got in their responses to the silliness before I close this. I'm sorry to the original posters of these threads, but this isn't what talkbass was meant for........


Chris A.:rolleyes: :bassist: