In another thread - and not for the first time - there was a lot of argueing about chords and scales to be used in a particular (jazz) tune. In various other posts the relevance of theory is seriously doubted. I am in neither camp and I would like to give both sides the opportunity to shoot me if I'm wrong.

In many fields of life, theory is invented through practical experience. We find creative solutions for sudden problems. Afterwards we reflect on them, preserving the acquired knowledge. In music also. We play together, we create, experience, reflect, produce theoretical knowledge.

Throughout the centuries, all musical theory was built up this way. We analysed what we thought sounded good, trying to find out why it sounded so good. Unfortunately, throughout the ages, all kinds of authorities - the church, teachers, critics - tried to nail down musicians on the existing theory.

Some of those musicians - the outstanding geniuses - wouldn't let that happen. That doesn't mean they didn't use the knowledge built up before them. They studied, but at the same time they kept their minds open.

Apart from authorities, these creative musicians also had to struggle with audiences, to learn them to like their new music. Thus, over the centuries, our ears have become more and more tolerant. Over the last century or so, the power of musical authorities has declined strongly, the musical scenery becoming more and more democratic.

What does this mean for us? We should study theory, to enable us to stand on the shoulders of the musical giants of the past. But we should also do away with dogmatism, playing music as freely and creatively as we can, and create new theory afterwards, resisting the temptation to impose it on generations coming.

Hi,
Some aspects of your writing reminded me of our music teacher in art-school.
He had worked with Brazilian slum-kids in a previous life. One of them was a so called 'outstanding genius', as he described it. He said that true genius rarely occurs and that the meaning of that word is often projected on people that don't really deserve the classification. The differences between a real and a so-called one were obvious to him.
A real one can improve without having had lessons or theory, a so called one can only change what's already there. A true one is like that for life, a fake at times shimmers and may come up with a nice ditty or theory every once so often.
Dogmatism is there for people that can't do without.
It doesn't mean that one can't do without dogma...

......Dogmatism is there for people that can't do without.
It doesn't mean that one can't do without dogma...

If by 'Dogma' you mean rules (or modes of opperation) then I would have to mildly agree. Rules are fine for learning something and pointing us in generally accepted ways. But as you use them it must be remembered there may be different ways of doing business.

If by 'Dogma' you mean a system of rules that has become a belief or way of working without considering any concepts outside the boundary of that dogma, then I would have to very strongly disagree. Everytime one accepts a dogmatic system, one automatically rules out options that may be important.

We have to be careful that the rules (or dogma) never become more important than the object they observe.

It's true. I was recently transcribing a walking bass line from Ron Carter on "Rhythm-a-ning" with Freddie Hubbard, and he was hitting all kinds of notes that you shouldn't be able to play over rhythm changes, but he made it work. Also, there's a lesson from Victor Wooten on bassplayer.tv where he solos over a vamp in Gm, playing everything but the notes in the Gm scale - but he played it cleanly and solidly and it sounded better than the sloppy diatonic solo that he also played. So the key, I think, is having good ideas and executing them with confidence.

If by 'Dogma' you mean rules (or modes of opperation) then I would have to mildly agree. Rules are fine for learning something and pointing us in generally accepted ways. But as you use them it must be remembered there may be different ways of doing business.

If by 'Dogma' you mean a system of rules that has become a belief or way of working without considering any concepts outside the boundary of that dogma, then I would have to very strongly disagree. Everytime one accepts a dogmatic system, one automatically rules out options that may be important.

We have to be careful that the rules (or dogma) never become more important than the object they observe.

'Exceptions confirm the rule' is what people here generally say about stepping outside a system of rules.

Chris, I think you're working from a flawed hypothesis. In order to respond with any specificity I'd need to know which thread you're talking about, but reducing the (jazz) world to people who argue about "chords and scales" and others who doubt "the relevance of theory" is a serious mis statement. There's that great Will Lee line "There's three kinds of people in the world, those that can count and those that can't."

If anybody wants to know where I stand on the whole chord/scale approach, just take a quick look through my posts. Suffice it to say the only things that I am dogmatic about are the skill sets necessary to play this music at a somewhat competent level - you HAVE TO be able to hear with enough clarity that you know what you are hearing, whether that's what the other musicians are playing or that line you have going on in your head. If you can't HEAR that clearly (which includes hearing function) you have no hope of getting it out of your head and into the air in real time. You HAVE TO have some understanding of what you are hearing; if someone brings in a lead sheet, you have to be able to internally generate some kind of concept based on what those symbols will sound like to begin playing together (which can free you from the box of only being able to interpret what others have already played).
And you HAVE TO be able to get to these things that you hear clearly and understand and get them out into the air without your instrument being an impediment.
All of which means work on ear training, functional theory and physical approach. Given that, what's the most efficient approach? Well, in pretty much every other field of endeavor (arts included) you start with a pretty codified pedagogical approach. You build a good foundation, you work progressively towards achieving specific skill sets, which in turn give you the foundation for even deeper skill sets.

An interesting parable on this point is a lovely little book called THE DOT AND THE LINE, check that out and let me know what you think.

But to your point, the guys that are deepest into the above mentioned skill sets are also the guys whose playing has the freeist approach to the music...

I find myself in very unfamiliar territory, agreeing with everything Ed said. I would only add that for any style of music, there is a basis of "common practice", or heritage.... lineage. If you play with a traditional bluegrass group and use a strat with a wah wah, then you are imposing something out of the common practice (Whether that is good or not - well who is to say?).
With jazz, there is a heritage of melodic language (s), and I think one needs to be aware of that history. All the greatest players have some grounding or relationship with that tradition in their playing....it comes from something.
Of course, the players who push that evolution forward are the ones who bring something new to the art form. So it seems that there has to be some balance between innovation and the observance and acknowledgement of what has preceded.
I echo Ed's closing comment
the guys that are deepest into the above-mentioned skill sets are also the guys whose playing has the freest approach to the music...
To me, the most interesting classical composers have been the ones who did approach the craft in a freer and less-pedantic manner. I think of Delius, Roy Harris, Schoenberg, Takemitsu, and others who were largely autodidactic, but who still understood the traditions that they pushed against.
Jon Schwabe

You can agree with me and still find me an annoying git, if that makes it more familiar...;)

Dear Ed, I avoided mentioning threads, let alone posts because I do not want to offend anyone. I don't remember reading anything you wrote, let alone that I referred to it. I like your contribution to this discussion, though I HAVE TO partly disagree with you on the HAVE TO part of your post.

I was in a band once with a Hammond organ player. He couldn't read music, chords, tabulature, nothing. He knew nothing about chords. He couldn't even even remember song titles. I often had to sing him four bars of the melody to get him started. But he was awesome. He played spontaneous changes, like substituting Fm with Ab or Abm or Ddim or all of them in one bar. The crazy thing is, after three months I could follow him blindfolded. I wouldn't have traded this experience for a free shipment of all versions of the Real Book.

Of course all of us non-geniuses are smart enough to learn theory to build a good foundation - to stand on giants' shoulders, like I wrote. But too often teachers (as well as some posts on this forum) are getting pretty dogmatic. Use this or that scale, only play root notes there, half notes for the head, walk on solos. So I agree with
Toronto. The ear comes first.

'Exceptions confirm the rule' is what people here generally say about stepping outside a system of rules.

You know, I've heard that line all my life and I really don't understand what it means.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a mistake in judgement, then I can see it maybe confirming the rule.....but the thing that would make it a mistake would be an interpretation by someone who already was in favor of the rule, and at that point it really doesn't prove anything.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a good idea... then it would negate the rule..... at least for the people who thought it was a good idea.

What does it mean to you? (and please, if you think this hijacks the thread don't bother to answer)

In many fields of life, theory is invented through practical experience. We find creative solutions for sudden problems. Afterwards we reflect on them, preserving the acquired knowledge.

I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Many theories are strongly rooted in factual, physical evidence. Using music as an example, harmonic theory derived from the major scale is quantitative to the point that we can always make certain claims with absolute certainty, such as "E is the major third of C". There's no debate about this. It's a fact.

Where you might be on to something is those elements of theory that come across more as subjective "rules" which could and should be broken, such as "avoiding" the 4th note in some scales. These are situations that call for more qualitative/subjective consideration rather than quantitative/objective claims. What sounds "wrong" to one musician may sound beautiful to another. There is no way, no should there be a way, to decide who is "right".

I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Many theories are strongly rooted in factual, physical evidence. Using music as an example, harmonic theory derived from the major scale is quantitative to the point that we can always make certain claims with absolute certainty, such as "E is the major third of C". There's no debate about this. It's a fact.".

(You're absolutely right for the part that I didn't quote..)

There's nothing quantatative about E being the third to C. It's just a practical agreement made in the early 18th century, called tempered tuning, made popular by Bach through the Well Tempered Clavier.
So until better arguments come up, I keep holding that all musical theory resulted from practical experience in the first place, and that we should keep experimenting outside theory, and not frustrate each other trying to do just that.

You know, I've heard that line all my life and I really don't understand what it means.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a mistake in judgement, then I can see it maybe confirming the rule.....but the thing that would make it a mistake would be an interpretation by someone who already was in favor of the rule, and at that point it really doesn't prove anything.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a good idea... then it would negate the rule..... at least for the people who thought it was a good idea.

What does it mean to you? (and please, if you think this hijacks the thread don't bother to answer)

It is a confusing line. To me it means that an exception to a rule will show you why there's a rule about certain things in general.
Once you've understood that rule you can make an exception.
The exception is often someone or something that can perform an act that others won't or can't copy.
They're the exception, and what they do confirms the rule for the ones that won't follow. Therefore, exceptions confirm what is the rule.
I hope I'm making myself clear.

(You're absolutely right for the part that I didn't quote..)

There's nothing quantatative about E being the third to C. It's just a practical agreement made in the early 18th century, called tempered tuning, made popular by Bach through the Well Tempered Clavier.
So until better arguments come up, I keep holding that all musical theory resulted from practical experience in the first place, and that we should keep experimenting outside theory, and not frustrate each other trying to do just that.

A major third of a root note is totally quantitative. Pitches are measured values. What I think you're questioning is the convention of calling that exact interval a "major third". Sure, if the major scale had historically been divided into twice as many intervals, the major third might have been called a "major 6th" or something like that, but the convention would still be there, just different.

Questioning convention (or "dogma") is certainly eye-opening and I believe promotes creativity, but convention in itself is not a bad thing: it facilitates communication. So when my band leader calls out certain changes or a specific progression I know what he wants. BUT I am always free to challenge dogma/convention and play outside of the conventional chords/scales... Then the subjectivity comes in and determines whether I'll be asked back!

A major third of a root note is totally quantitative. Pitches are measured values. What I think you're questioning is the convention of calling that exact interval a "major third". Sure, if the major scale had historically been divided into twice as many intervals, the major third might have been called a "major 6th" or something like that, but the convention would still be there, just different.

You're right on the dot calling it a convention, but it's less simple than you might think. I realise I'm running the risk of getting too metaphysical here, but IMHO the structure of music differs greatly from something like Newton's laws. Newton described what (he thought) was physically there.

There is of course the very physical chain of harmonics already discovered by Pythagoras, but the question IF WE LIKE THEM is a totally different matter. In the Gregorian era, music was unison. Later on we started to like (and accept!) polyphonic music. Fifths coming up first, thirds were realively late to get accepted :) Doing this we were breaking papal laws, mind you! Because at first every novelty was called unconventional, if not diabolic.

My point is: this process is ongoing. It's very good to know something about music history and the theories it generated (you'll notice I'm not totally ignorant of the subject) , but we should avoid to allow it to compromise us.

IMHO the structure of music differs greatly from something like Newton's laws. Newton described what (he thought) was physically there.


"IMHO"... your opinion is subjective relative to physical fact: pitches are described by quantifiable frequencies, i.e. notes, intervals, scales, and chords are all quantifiable, all describable by numbers.

But you mention music in your immediate post quoted here, whereas your original post on this thread targets chords, scales, and theory. This is the crux of my point: theory of chords, scales, harmony etc is quantifiable, and yes, grounded in convention that facilitates communication (so you wouldn't have to sing the tune to your keyboard player!).

BUT, translating that theory into music is where the art is, where the subjectivity lies, and where challenging the dogma not only makes sense but makes all the difference.

Well, again your making an erroneous division between people who "only know theory, real book reading, non ear players" and " hearfelt folks who only play by ear", that's a false dichotomy. That's not what happens on the stands up here.

But whatever, have fun, I'm out....

It's true. I was recently transcribing a walking bass line from Ron Carter on "Rhythm-a-ning" with Freddie Hubbard, and he was hitting all kinds of notes that you shouldn't be able to play over rhythm changes, but he made it work. Also, there's a lesson from Victor Wooten on bassplayer.tv where he solos over a vamp in Gm, playing everything but the notes in the Gm scale - but he played it cleanly and solidly and it sounded better than the sloppy diatonic solo that he also played. So the key, I think, is having good ideas and executing them with confidence.

That's interesting. I'll have to check that Victor Wooten vid out. I had one of my first jazz teachers do the same thing to me. He only played the notes of a B major scale over an F Blues just to show me how important rhythm, timing, phrasing and feel were. He was playing it on the piano, it kind of rocked my world and I think it goes along with the topic here.

Well, again your making an erroneous division between people who "only know theory, real book reading, non ear players" and " hearfelt folks who only play by ear", that's a false dichotomy. That's not what happens on the stands up here.

But whatever, have fun, I'm out....

I surely didn't mean any dichotomy, maybe just the outside corners of a spectrum. I question the importance of neither theory nor hearing. I only speak against conservatism, sustained by theoretical authority and the frustrations it might cause.

Perhaps you ought to consider a trip down memory lane back to a time when you didn't already know the stuff you wish to forget.

My jazz teacher was telling me about something Dave Holland said. Dave said that he learned by listening and playing along with a "Leroy Vinnegar" album until he knew and could play all of Leroy's notes. He didn't have written anything.

Imagine what kind of a "weeder" that type of learning is?

All of us who don't already have "it" are glad we have "white bread" theory. Training wheels or not.

If I understand Chris K's original point, it is that:

(a) some people are very concerned about applying (western European) music theory to their playing, to the point of saying that it's wrong to play a certain note over a certain chord, and
(b) some people think that any type of theoretical analysis limits or constrains their playing, so they recommend not learning any theory at all.

I think Chris' point was that both of these positions are limiting, and we'll be better players if we open our minds both to understanding theory and being free to play 'outside' of it.

Music theory is just a set of names for sounds, and it makes it much easier to talk about the sounds if we have names for them. Imagine trying to talk to your bandmates if no one knew the names of any scales, chords, or intervals. But knowing those names doesn't mean we have to be bound by any rules. You have a piece of wood with four strings on it (or five, or six ...). You can do anything you want with it. If it sounds good, it is good.

Peace to all.

If I understand Chris K's original point, it is that:

(a) some people are very concerned about applying (western European) music theory to their playing, to the point of saying that it's wrong to play a certain note over a certain chord, and
(b) some people think that any type of theoretical analysis limits or constrains their playing, so they recommend not learning any theory at all.

I think Chris' point was that both of these positions are limiting, and we'll be better players if we open our minds both to understanding theory and being free to play 'outside' of it.

Music theory is just a set of names for sounds, and it makes it much easier to talk about the sounds if we have names for them. Imagine trying to talk to your bandmates if no one knew the names of any scales, chords, or intervals. But knowing those names doesn't mean we have to be bound by any rules. You have a piece of wood with four strings on it (or five, or six ...). You can do anything you want with it. If it sounds good, it is good.

Peace to all.

Peace and long life to you Jim!
And thanks a lot for trying to help me out. You are right on the dot. To no avail, however. But we'll just look for the silver lining, either by chords sheet or by ear.

I was taught to learn the rules so that I could then learn to break them on purpose (knowing that I had broke them) rather than break the rules on accident.

Me too - by people who did not really appreciate to see me try just that - it's a well known dogmatic strategy :D.

Going my own way every now and then I discovered quite a lot by accident. Unfortunately, most of it was about what NOT to play. Which is also pretty important, though.

And it's music we're talking about, not brain surgery. So...

If I understand Chris K's original point, it is that:

(a) some people are very concerned about applying (western European) music theory to their playing, to the point of saying that it's wrong to play a certain note over a certain chord, and
(b) some people think that any type of theoretical analysis limits or constrains their playing, so they recommend not learning any theory at all.

I think Chris' point was that both of these positions are limiting, and we'll be better players if we open our minds both to understanding theory and being free to play 'outside' of it.

Music theory is just a set of names for sounds, and it makes it much easier to talk about the sounds if we have names for them. Imagine trying to talk to your bandmates if no one knew the names of any scales, chords, or intervals. But knowing those names doesn't mean we have to be bound by any rules. You have a piece of wood with four strings on it (or five, or six ...). You can do anything you want with it. If it sounds good, it is good.

Peace to all.

Nice post. We don't have to be pedantic about music theory. I use it as a tool to facilitate learning and communication. It makes playing easier, not harder.

Plus I never have to bother with tabs. :p

I find that even intuitive musicians already know more theory than they think they do.

We should study theory...But we should also do away with dogmatism.

agreed, you gotta know the rules to break em. But I will say this:
Newbies regularly post questions like "what does all that I-ii-V-I" stuff mean?" or "how do I use modes?" etc... In those case, "do away with dogma" is a useless and uninformative response. If someone doesn't know theory, then discouraging them is certainly not helpful.

OTOH, I have never seen a post where somebody who knew their theory went on to advocate strict adherence to "the rules." it seems to me that almost every player who has learned music theory also knows its not RULES TO OBEY

agreed, you gotta know the rules to break em. But I will say this:
Newbies regularly post questions like "what does all that I-ii-V-I" stuff mean?" or "how do I use modes?" etc... In those case, "do away with dogma" is a useless and uninformative response. If someone doesn't know theory, then discouraging them is certainly not helpful.

OTOH, I have never seen a post where somebody who knew their theory went on to advocate strict adherence to "the rules." it seems to me that almost every player who has learned music theory also knows its not RULES TO OBEY

Part of this is a generational thing as someone suggested when they described an elder statesman lifting lines by listening to records only. Now that jazz has gone to the university, academics (I have an M.Ed.) are compelled by their DNA to crystallize a subject so that it can then be taught properly to the unwashed masses.

Chord A fitting with scale B is just the sort of structured formula that gets our heart beat up. However, it certainly has the ability to weed out creativity. If I am limited only to Dorian, Mixolydian, Ionian over a ii V I, then better take a 5 hour energy shot to stay awake during the set.

Same as all the stories of XXXXX great player who couldn't grab his ass with both hands theory wise. Where do stories like that get us? Those people seem to be outliers on the bell curve.

So the rub is, how do we allow theory to serve us, and not have us serving theory? I am currently rereading Kenny Werner's Effortless Mastery. Maybe Kenny has the answer in an appendix somewhere. Good discussion fellas.

Part of this is a generational thing as someone suggested when they described an elder statesman lifting lines by listening to records only. Now that jazz has gone to the university, academics (I have an M.Ed.) are compelled by their DNA to crystallize a subject so that it can then be taught properly to the unwashed masses.... So the rub is, how do we allow theory to serve us, and not have us serving theory?
Well, that's part of the problem, that most folks tend to voice/perceive that the ONLY TWO OPTIONS are the ones that you outline. I've gone down the self taught path and hit that dead end, and I've been down the academic path and hit that dead end. I'm currently studying privately and that seems to be opening vistas, not closing them down. This has been thrown out before and here it goes again, my teacher's article (http://www.joesolomonbassworkshop.com/article.htm)....

Well, that's part of the problem, that most folks tend to voice/perceive that the ONLY TWO OPTIONS are the ones that you outline. I've gone down the self taught path and hit that dead end, and I've been down the academic path and hit that dead end. I'm currently studying privately and that seems to be opening vistas, not closing them down. This has been thrown out before and here it goes again, my teacher's article (http://www.joesolomonbassworkshop.com/article.htm)....

Yes, well there clearly is more than one path up the mountain. Myself, I like to read about and understand as much as I can about a topic I am interested in. Therefore my theory knowledge outpaces my ability at this point.

Thanks for the article. I couldn't read it, so I printed it off. Will wait till I get home to my reading glasses. Looks promising.

Great article, and I'm glad you threw it out once more. Thanks.

To me, the most striking phrase was:
But in the end, what you know is not as important as how and
to what level you have absorbed it.

Hear, hear.

A major third of a root note is totally quantitative. Pitches are measured values. What I think you're questioning is the convention of calling that exact interval a "major third". Sure, if the major scale had historically been divided into twice as many intervals, the major third might have been called a "major 6th" or something like that, but the convention would still be there, just different.


quantitative but only within context (not sure if i mean to agree or disagree with you, perhaps both). the words 'major third' do not imply a specific interval. nor do 'C to E,' because note names are ambiguous and arbitrary. you could be talking about an equal tempered third, an irregularly tempered third, a 5/4, a 9/7, or a 81/64. the only unambiguous way to describe an interval is through it's numerical identity (which is non-debatable).

Chris K is very right in that "all musical theory resulted from practical experience." take the rules of western music theory outside of western music and they don't mean anything. not in other music, and certainly not in harmonic theory. so our 'music theory' exists to make sense of an unusually irrational system.

take the rules of western music theory outside of western music and they don't mean anything. not in other music, and certainly not in harmonic theory. so our 'music theory' exists to make sense of an unusually irrational system.

Now why didn't I think of saying just that. Do we already have a club for Non-Western Bassists? :D Let's establish one ASAP.

Now why didn't I think of saying just that. Do we already have a club for Non-Western Bassists? :D Let's establish one ASAP.

i'm in if you promise to join :hiding:

i'm in if you promise to join :hiding:

We'll have to restrict access to fretless players - to be able to play quarter tones.

And to keep country bassists away, for they are definitely much too western.

It will get complicated, I'm afraid.

If I understand you correctly, you are making the point (by way of analogy) in a discussion of grammar and the English language, that Chinese doesn't use the same rules.
I hesitate to point out (again by way of analogy) that Chinese ISN'T English.

"if it sounds good, it is good"

It's too bad the lessons of people like Russell and Wittgenstein are lost in the stratusphere. This statement is as meaningless as Jabberwalkie.

So, if it sounds bad it is bad?
If it tastes good it is good? The best poison might taste very good.

There is no argument because there is no point. But that never stopped an argument in any case.

So, if it sounds bad it is bad?
If it tastes good it is good? The best poison might taste very good.
When was the last time someone got sick or died from listening to "bad" music?

Yes, if it sounds bad, it is bad. That statement is not meaningless, and there is a point. The point is that music can only be judged by how it sounds, not by whether the notes fit some theoretical rule. If you like the sound of a flat nine over a minor 7th chord, then play it. If you don't like that sound, then don't play it.

Oh, 'golf clap' for dropping some philosophers' names. That's impressive.

If I understand you correctly, you are making the point (by way of analogy) in a discussion of grammar and the English language, that Chinese doesn't use the same rules.
I hesitate to point out (again by way of analogy) that Chinese ISN'T English.

But the point still stands- Chinese and English share some of the same phonemes.

Two different types of music have the same relation; arabic music is not western music, but they do share a few elements.

But the point still stands- Chinese and English share some of the same phonemes.

Two different types of music have the same relation; arabic music is not western music, but they do share a few elements.

Yeah, pitch and rhythm.

Yes, if it sounds bad, it is bad. That statement is not meaningless, and there is a point. The point is that music can only be judged by how it sounds, not by whether the notes fit some theoretical rule. If you like the sound of a flat nine over a minor 7th chord, then play it. If you don't like that sound, then don't play it.


What if someone else plays it, and you and I are both listening, and you like it, and I don't?

Is it good? Is it bad? Is it both?

agreed, you gotta know the rules to break em. But I will say this:
Newbies regularly post questions like "what does all that I-ii-V-I" stuff mean?" or "how do I use modes?" etc... In those case, "do away with dogma" is a useless and uninformative response. If someone doesn't know theory, then discouraging them is certainly not helpful.[/I]

Thank you Mambo4.

I wish I had said it that way.

But the point still stands- Chinese and English share some of the same phonemes.

Two different types of music have the same relation; arabic music is not western music, but they do share a few elements.

Yes you are absolutely correct, everything is exactly like everything else, except in the ways that they are different.:rolleyes:

look, theory isn't the end-all, be-all, but if you don't think it is important, than find me a player who is great at "improv'ing" with random players and has no theoretical knowledge.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't have any supernatural forces guiding my playing. I've never seen someone hum a tune and then be handed an instrument for the very first time and play it. There has to be some kind of context to play within/from. Vic Wooten often says that you should play what you hear inside of you - that's fine if you are a gifted individual who has been playing the instrument since before they can speak.. I don't think that's the average player.

If I go into a jam and I identify the key, or (Even better) the chord progression, then I know what I can play without sounding like crap. It doesn't have to necessarily fall inside the box, but I know what the different intervals sound like and how they match up with what the other plays are playing.

If you are simply playing "what sounds good", that is assuming that you have to hear it first to determine that it sounds good or bad. At that point I might have played a bad note. There are alot of times when I would prefer to get it right the first time. Sure there are times I hit a "wrong" note and it sounds good, but there's way more times when I hit a wrong note and it sound bad.

So its all about context and having tools to help you. It is like using mnemonics to remember state capitals.. it is just a shortcut there to help you when you need.

But the point still stands- Chinese and English share some of the same phonemes.

Two different types of music have the same relation; arabic music is not western music, but they do share a few elements.

http://i708.photobucket.com/albums/ww88/michaelcase/head_explosion.jpg

look, theory isn't the end-all, be-all, but if you don't think it is important, than find me a player who is great at "improv'ing" with random players and has no theoretical knowledge.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't have any supernatural forces guiding my playing. I've never seen someone hum a tune and then be handed an instrument for the very first time and play it. There has to be some kind of context to play within/from. Vic Wooten often says that you should play what you hear inside of you - that's fine if you are a gifted individual who has been playing the instrument since before they can speak.. I don't think that's the average player.

If I go into a jam and I identify the key, or (Even better) the chord progression, then I know what I can play without sounding like crap. It doesn't have to necessarily fall inside the box, but I know what the different intervals sound like and how they match up with what the other plays are playing.

If you are simply playing "what sounds good", that is assuming that you have to hear it first to determine that it sounds good or bad. At that point I might have played a bad note. There are alot of times when I would prefer to get it right the first time. Sure there are times I hit a "wrong" note and it sounds good, but there's way more times when I hit a wrong note and it sound bad.

So its all about context and having tools to help you. It is like using mnemonics to remember state capitals.. it is just a shortcut there to help you when you need.

DOWN WITH MAKING SENSE!

Yes you are absolutely correct, everything is exactly like everything else, except in the ways that they are different.:rolleyes:

Good way to miss my point there, lad.

English and Chinese have the same purpose: they have different means to achieving this purpose, but this purpose is eventually achieved. This purpose, conveying information. Hell, they even share some aspects.

Music and, say, auto repair do not have the same purpose. That is plain to see.

However- much like Chinese and English, traditional, twelve-tone-to-the-octave western music has the same purpose as, say, 24 tone to the octave music, or 43 tone to the octave music. And, funnily enough, again like Chinese and English, managed to share some aspects; pitches, rhythms, and so on.

No matter WHAT we do musically, what tools we do it with- what tonal system, what chords, what instrument, the purpose is the same: to make something that sounds good and makes the people listening FEEL good.

I don't care if I use thousand-tone-to-the-octave, completely weird chords with 15 different pitches in it. As long as that purpose is fulfilled, it's STILL music.

Chinese and English are different, yes. But they're both STILL languages, and both fulfil their purpose, and even manage to share stuff while doing it.

Good way to miss my point there, lad.

English and Chinese have the same purpose: they have different means to achieving this purpose, but this purpose is eventually achieved. This purpose, conveying information. Hell, they even share some aspects.

Music and, say, auto repair do not have the same purpose. That is plain to see.

However- much like Chinese and English, traditional, twelve-tone-to-the-octave western music has the same purpose as, say, 24 tone to the octave music, or 43 tone to the octave music. And, funnily enough, again like Chinese and English, managed to share some aspects; pitches, rhythms, and so on.

No matter WHAT we do musically, what tools we do it with- what tonal system, what chords, what instrument, the purpose is the same: to make something that sounds good and makes the people listening FEEL good.

I don't care if I use thousand-tone-to-the-octave, completely weird chords with 15 different pitches in it. As long as that purpose is fulfilled, it's STILL music.

Chinese and English are different, yes. But they're both STILL languages, and both fulfil their purpose, and even manage to share stuff while doing it.

listening to my engine after it gets fixed makes me feel good too. don't discount auto repair from this feel good enterprise that language and music get to participate in.

Good way to miss my point there, lad.

English and Chinese have the same purpose: they have different means to achieving this purpose, but this purpose is eventually achieved. This purpose, conveying information. Hell, they even share some aspects.

Music and, say, auto repair do not have the same purpose. That is plain to see.

However- much like Chinese and English, traditional, twelve-tone-to-the-octave western music has the same purpose as, say, 24 tone to the octave music, or 43 tone to the octave music. And, funnily enough, again like Chinese and English, managed to share some aspects; pitches, rhythms, and so on.

No matter WHAT we do musically, what tools we do it with- what tonal system, what chords, what instrument, the purpose is the same: to make something that sounds good and makes the people listening FEEL good.

I don't care if I use thousand-tone-to-the-octave, completely weird chords with 15 different pitches in it. As long as that purpose is fulfilled, it's STILL music.

Chinese and English are different, yes. But they're both STILL languages, and both fulfil their purpose, and even manage to share stuff while doing it.

What is your point?

Are you saying that because I speak English I can understand Chinese?

Talk bass gets stranger and stranger all the time.

listening to my engine after it gets fixed makes me feel good too. don't discount auto repair from this feel good enterprise that language and music get to participate in.


Octave - Octane

The parallels are frightening!

Being the one to have started this thread, I would like to thank everybody for their contributions, regardless of course of their opinions. I can honestly say you guys helped me to reassess my views on the role of music theory. Right now I would put it this way:

Theory is good:
- when used as system for musical communication, to pass on experience, to teach and learn
- as a means of understanding the beauty of music, deepening the appreciation of it
- to support our musical ear in practical play

Theory is bad:
- if it limits the freedom of musical expression
- if it fails to get absorbed into practical play
- if its vast proportions discourage beginning players

Thank you, peace and long life to all.

Yes, things are good, unless they are bad. Then they are bad, of course, unless they are good. In which case, they are good. Unless they happen to be bad....

Gutta lavat lapidem

I'll stick with cavat...

Being the one to have started this thread, I would like to thank everybody for their contributions, regardless of course of their opinions. I can honestly say you guys helped me to reassess my views on the role of music theory. Right now I would put it this way:

Theory is good:
- when used as system for musical communication, to pass on experience, to teach and learn
- as a means of understanding the beauty of music, deepening the appreciation of it
- to support our musical ear in practical play

Theory is bad:
- if it limits the freedom of musical expression
- if it fails to get absorbed into practical play
- if its vast proportions discourage beginning players

Thank you, peace and long life to all.


You can live again, the shackles have been removed. You're welcome.

Thank you!

What is your point?

Are you saying that because I speak English I can understand Chinese?

Talk bass gets stranger and stranger all the time.

Not quite. I'm saying that you can use either to get your point across effectively.

Same with music, and the different styles that deviate from western music.

I suppose another way of looking at it is: saying that you MUST learn western music theory and only western music theory is like saying people MUST learn to speak English and only English, which discounts the possibilities of other alternatives- the maqam system, say, or Chinese.

That's the analogy I'm trying to make.

It makes sense in my head, but the problem with that is that I think in right angles to most folks.

Not quite. I'm saying that you can use either to get your point across effectively.




Not if the people you're speaking to only speak English.



Same with music, and the different styles that deviate from western music.

I suppose another way of looking at it is: saying that you MUST learn western music theory and only western music theory is like saying people MUST learn to speak English and only English, which discounts the possibilities of other alternatives- the maqam system, say, or Chinese.

That's the analogy I'm trying to make.

It makes sense in my head, but the problem with that is that I think in right angles to most folks.


All this is well and good, *if* your audience (and the people you're having a conversation with (the band) speak both Chinese and English. It all breaks down if you're speaking Chinese while everyone else is speaking english.

You're going to summon Jeff Berlin again...

Not quite. I'm saying that you can use either to get your point across effectively.

I have to go with Pacman on this one.

Same with music, and the different styles that deviate from western music.

I suppose another way of looking at it is: saying that you MUST learn western music theory and only western music theory is like saying people MUST learn to speak English and only English, which discounts the possibilities of other alternatives- the maqam system, say, or Chinese.


Well to the best of my knowledge nobody said one needs to learn ONLY western music theory, but if your gonna play music based in western music theory it's a good idea to START WITH WESTERN MUSIC THEORY.

My point is this; say you're a businessman and you've got a meeting with the head of Sony. You spend a month preparing your presentation, buy a really nifty suit. You show up to the meeting and find the person you're meeting with only speaks Japanese, do you think your High School Spanish will help?

I know you want to a rebel and go against the "machine," but your point is nothing.

Yes you are absolutely correct, everything is exactly like everything else, except in the ways that they are different.:rolleyes:


Sig-worthy!

I have to go with Pacman on this one.




Well to the best of my knowledge nobody said one needs to learn ONLY western music theory, but if your gonna play music based in western music theory it's a good idea to START WITH WESTERN MUSIC THEORY.

My point is this; say you're a businessman and you've got a meeting with the head of Sony. You spend a month preparing your presentation, buy a really nifty suit. You show up to the meeting and find the person you're meeting with only speaks Japanese, do you think your High School Spanish will help?

I know you want to a rebel and go against the "machine," but your point is nothing.

unfortunately the way most music education works is that they present you with a set of rules without justifying the reason behind it. like

Q: why are there twelve notes in the octave?
A: because when you add 12 5ths together, you reach the starting note.

which of course is not true, because no combination of pure fifths will get you back to that original pitch (nor will any combination of pure fifths give you a pure major/minor third). and anyone who wants to further their harmonic understanding of music later down the line has to effectively unlearn all these rules because they no longer apply.

in contrast, if we all started out learning a general harmonic theory, we could apply it to any kind of music, with full understanding of how that music works. so no, contrary to popular belief i believe it's a very bad idea to start out a musical education with a specific set of 'rules' in mind, particularly when a student is lacking in knowledge or is too young to understand those rules.

unfortunately the way most music education works is that they present you with a set of rules without justifying the reason behind it. like

Q: why are there twelve notes in the octave?
A: because when you add 12 5ths together, you reach the starting note.

which of course is not true, because no combination of pure fifths will get you back to that original pitch (nor will any combination of pure fifths give you a pure major/minor third). and anyone who wants to further their harmonic understanding of music later down the line has to effectively unlearn all these rules because they no longer apply.

in contrast, if we all started out learning a general harmonic theory, we could apply it to any kind of music, with full understanding of how that music works. so no, contrary to popular belief i believe it's a very bad idea to start out a musical education with a specific set of 'rules' in mind, particularly when a student is lacking in knowledge or is too young to understand those rules.

Yes, it would be nice if the entire world studied and played music the exact same way, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua
Yes you are absolutely correct, everything is exactly like everything else, except in the ways that they are different.

Sig-worthy!
__________________
genius = passion x work2


I just copied this:

"It reminds me of a theory of mine.
I call it "Spontaneous Similitude"
it goes something like this it goes:
"Everything is like something,"
"Anything like something else."
In technical terms,
I can express it algebraically:
A equals B U Beta"

My Theory of Simultaneous Similitude
By David Thomas & The Wooden Birds
From 'Monster walks the Winter Lake'

I have no desire to 'fight the machine'. Me, all I want to do is play the music I enjoy, be that microtonal, western, or whatever.

If I want to play microtonal music, then I'll play microtonal music. And, hell. It might actually work somesuch in western music- Black Flag tried it, and it was cool.

I would not do it if the people I was playing with didn't want me too- but I'd love to have the option.

Oh, yes, too. Arabic music isn't actually harmonic at all- so starting with the rules of harmony wouldn't work too well.

unfortunately the way most music education works is that they present you with a set of rules without justifying the reason behind it. like

Q: why are there twelve notes in the octave?
A: because when you add 12 5ths together, you reach the starting note.

which of course is not true, because no combination of pure fifths will get you back to that original pitch (nor will any combination of pure fifths give you a pure major/minor third). and anyone who wants to further their harmonic understanding of music later down the line has to effectively unlearn all these rules because they no longer apply.

in contrast, if we all started out learning a general harmonic theory, we could apply it to any kind of music, with full understanding of how that music works. so no, contrary to popular belief i believe it's a very bad idea to start out a musical education with a specific set of 'rules' in mind, particularly when a student is lacking in knowledge or is too young to understand those rules.

Did you even read the post you quoted?

I have no desire to 'fight the machine'. Me, all I want to do is play the music I enjoy, be that microtonal, western, or whatever.

And nobody is stopping you.

If I want to play microtonal music, then I'll play microtonal music. And, hell. It might actually work somesuch in western music- Black Flag tried it, and it was cool.


I would not do it if the people I was playing with didn't want me too- but I'd love to have the option.

Then find those people and only play with them. I'm sure you'll find a great deal more fulfillment doing so.


Oh, yes, too. Arabic music isn't actually harmonic at all- so starting with the rules of harmony wouldn't work too well.

I really don't feel qualified to agree or disagree with this.

I have no desire to 'fight the machine'.

...

And, hell.

...

It might actually work somesuch ...

Oh, yes, too.




Do you apply the same liberties to music as you do grammar?

Do you apply the same liberties to music as you do grammar?

Dude you're getting, all, dogmatic, and stuff, on. us,

I have no desire to 'fight the machine'. Me, all I want to do is play the music I enjoy, be that microtonal, western, or whatever.

If I want to play microtonal music, then I'll play microtonal music. And, hell. It might actually work somesuch in western music- Black Flag tried it, and it was cool.


Aren't you trying to make a case for banishing theoretical labels? then why do you keep using them? Does Western music tell you that you can't play anything else?

There are some ridiculous people out there. I haven't seen a good excuse for ignoring theoretical knowledge other than laziness. Having a little bit of extra knowledge doesn't hurt, people. You can use it or ignore it as you wish.. :rollno:

Aren't you trying to make a case for banishing theoretical labels? then why do you keep using them? Does Western music tell you that you can't play anything else?

There are some ridiculous people out there. I haven't seen a good excuse for ignoring theoretical knowledge other than laziness. Having a little bit of extra knowledge doesn't hurt, people. You can use it or ignore it as you wish.. :rollno:

Don't you get IT! Music theory is designed by the imperialist capitalist system to keep us down. The sound of a major chord makes you give up your free will. The more you practice your arpeggios, the more you become a shill of the capitalist monster eating everything good and micro tonal. :bassist:

i h8 the fakt dat aiymu slaiyv to convenshunal spelling 2.

think of what shakespeare would have done without the constraints of the written word! microverbal hamlet free from dogma!

I'll stick with cavat...

But only I YOU are to be the drop. Because, if you were to be the stone, you would prefer 'lavat', now wouldn't you?

Again you reduce the width and breadth of the universe to two choices....

Again you reduce the width and breadth of the universe to two choices....

A little more absorption would not be a bad idea. And I thought I was a wiseguy...

This is a ridiculous thread because it automatically assumes that people who learn theory and the methodology of applying that theory have only one single approach to making music within a little tiny box from which there is no escape. It's a truly ridiculous premise. And arguing the other side is just as ridiculous because it assumes that you give that ridiculous premise even a tiny shred of credibility.

This is a ridiculous thread because it automatically assumes that people who learn theory and the methodology of applying that theory have only one single approach to making music within a little tiny box from which there is no escape. It's a truly ridiculous premise. And arguing the other side is just as ridiculous because it assumes that you give that ridiculous premise even a tiny shred of credibility.

But you have to admit, it sure is fun to watch and occasionally throw some gas on the fire. Talkbass has become kind of comedic.

But you have to admit, it sure is fun to watch and occasionally throw some gas on the fire. Talkbass has become kind of comedic.
Can't argue that.

In today's paper, a famous classical piano player put it this way: In the first and in the last place music is entertainment, with capital E. You can treat it dogmatically (sic!), or make it sacrosanct, but in the end it's a night out for the audience. (...)
Some of the fun of that you might experoence, as a musician, if you dare to let go of things, to decide on them on the actual moment."

So let's have just that fun, guys!:bassist:

Talkbass has become kind of comedic.

And it's all your fault ;)

So let's have just that fun, guys!:bassist:
Why assume otherwise?

Ignoring theoretical knowledge? No, I'm not arguing that. At all.

Instead, I'm trying to endeavour that we should all try to learn a bit more non-western theory, because I think it could help us with new ideas.

I've played classical music for more than half my life. I love western classical music. However, I'm also drawn to the more unconventional stuff, too. I just wish that I hadn't ended up in the deep end of non-traditional music without a map, and think that it might be profitable for musicians to be taught, say, microtonal music as well as traditional western.

As for my grammatical inclinations, that's a combination of my creative writing style, which makes heavy use of sentence fragments and the fact that I tend to transcribe my speech patterns- which, you might have guessed, make heavy use of pauses. While I'll accept that the use of pauses can be difficult to read when it gets excessive, I do think that the method in which you brought it up and the responses were unnecessary ad hominem.

Seriously, folks. I'm here to talk and make a case for something that is, surprise surprise, my opinion. I don't see the need for you to start ridiculing the way I write AND the way I speak because of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmSbdvzbOzY

Western music may not be microtonal, but it has only been codified by equal temperament since Rameau wrote his dogmatic treatise (sometime in the late 1700's I believe). Western musical history before that can take you into a pretty strange place of Well tempered or Just intonation. If you hear the music of our European ancestors for the first time, you might think you are hearing Eastern music.

The change is pretty dramatic, took a couple hundred years and was argued for and against just as passionately and stupidly as this thread for most of that time. And was just as largely ignored by the rest of the world.

The point being that you don’t have to go to China to step out of your musical world. There’s another world already inside the place where you live. But getting there requires some unlearning and some re-learning, or re-tuning.

Seriously, folks. I'm here to talk and make a case for something that is, surprise surprise, my opinion. I don't see the need for you to start ridiculing the way I write AND the way I speak because of that.

Because on the Internet, everyone is willing to get straight to the point without ridiculing something.

Seriously, buddy. That's just how people are. If someone doesn't like the way you type, they're going to notice that and call you out on long before they even bother to understand your argument. That's just how it is.

Ignoring theoretical knowledge? No, I'm not arguing that. At all.

Instead, I'm trying to endeavour that we should all try to learn a bit more non-western theory, because I think it could help us with new ideas.

I've played classical music for more than half my life. I love western classical music. However, I'm also drawn to the more unconventional stuff, too. I just wish that I hadn't ended up in the deep end of non-traditional music without a map, and think that it might be profitable for musicians to be taught, say, microtonal music as well as traditional western.

As for my grammatical inclinations, that's a combination of my creative writing style, which makes heavy use of sentence fragments and the fact that I tend to transcribe my speech patterns- which, you might have guessed, make heavy use of pauses. While I'll accept that the use of pauses can be difficult to read when it gets excessive, I do think that the method in which you brought it up and the responses were unnecessary ad hominem.

Seriously, folks. I'm here to talk and make a case for something that is, surprise surprise, my opinion. I don't see the need for you to start ridiculing the way I write AND the way I speak because of that.
Welcome to the internet, a slightly tougher room than a comedy club full of nuns.

You said stand on the shoulders of giants but you didn't you say teachable moment or paradigm shift. Why?

You said stand on the shoulders of giants but you didn't you say teachable moment or paradigm shift. Why?

Because I just didn't think of it. I meant to say music theory offers very helpful knowledge, because it enables us to use discoveries made by geniuses who lived before us. Only it should not hamper us to make new discoveries of our own.

And I do believe creativity is teachable; deployable at least. As is an attitude open to new paradigms.

In music theory, we should take the concept of 'new' into account. For example, Mozarts parralel 5ths once were a novelty, met with resistance, but got accepted. If you turn this argument upside down, it says: if you only apply theory, your music will soon be academic.

Or, to speak with Ed Fuqua: the line (the musician) will have to learn to adapt, to change, to create in order to gain and keep te love of the dot (the audience).

the line (the musician) will have to learn to adapt, to change, to create in order to gain and keep te love of the dot (the audience).

The dogmatism of the anti-dogmatic.

Woof.

Say... y'all seem like smart fellers...
Are Fender basses any good?










:D

Are Fender basses any good?

Soundpost adjustment is hard...

The dogmatism of the anti-dogmatic.

The drive to entertain: that's not dogma, that's urge.

If you keep your thumb next to your place in the script, you might not get so lost. It's as if YOU don't even know what point you're trying make anymore.

CRSICO, you're just not any fun anymore.

In music theory, we should take the concept of 'new' into account. For example, Mozarts parralel 5ths once were a novelty, met with resistance, but got accepted. If you turn this argument upside down, it says: if you only apply theory, your music will soon be academic.



Can you expound on this "concept of new"?

I'm having trouble following how applying music theory is it's antithesis.

Also you said if we turn this argument upside down...

I don't see anything about an argument in your post so I'm having trouble identifying the antecedent.

What's really going on here? Did you get dumped by a music professor?

how is this thread still going?

[QUOTE=mstott25;7764404]Can you expound on this "concept of new"?
QUOTE]

There's no cntradiction between applying theory and exploring new territory. My point - that you would rather ignore perhaps - is that theory is constantly expanded on account of creativity. And is not meant to hamper creative play.

You know, the NEW stuff. Not the stuff you guys have been doing for the last 25 years.

I have a question CRISCO - how, precisely, does one play an electric instrument in "Unplugged bands & sessions..." ?

As for what I've been doing for the last 25 years, much is available for anyone to assess to see if it, and any information I put forth based on that experience, is of any value to them.

Given your insistence on railing against points no one has made (is that why you have to bring them up? Otherwise you don't have anything to say?) or your tendency to ignore points of view that don't reinforce your rather flat world view, it might well behoove you to give us some aural insight into your "creative play"...

Ed, I listened to your recordings with pleasure and you play very well -and that's not even an admission. You DO play very well. Of course there is a 'but', merely having to do with taste, on which we better not argue.

As for my recordings: I have nothing satisfactory to show - satisfactory to myself that is. Cheap excuses like studio facilities etc. just don't count.

So you are admitting that your outright refusal to tread anywhere but completely virgin musical territory (whatever the heck that may sound like) has thus far produced no satisfactory results? And yet you still feel compelled to criticize others for not doing the same?

I never realized credentials were needed to express views on this forum - and I am certainly not going to let myself be forced into doing that. Everybody here is free to say what ever he has to say, without people doubting his or her playing abilities. If you read back carefully, you'll notice that's what I met with.

I never criticized anyone for showing or not showing their recordings. If you're proud, show'm off.
In the meantime, feel free to bash me if I try to show some modesty.

I think he's trying to get other people to try something that could be theoretically amazing musically. The only real problem is the way he's explaining it.

I never realized credentials were needed to express views on this forum - and I am certainly not going to let myself be forced into doing that. Everybody here is free to say what ever he has to say, without people doubting his or her playing abilities. If you read back carefully, you'll notice that's what I met with.

I never criticized anyone for showing or not showing their recordings. If you're proud, show'm off.
In the meantime, feel free to bash me if I try to show some modesty.

When you're trying to submit and prove a theory as big as this one, it is more or less necessary to see (or in this case, hear) what it is you're trying to get at. What you're doing is essentially trying to push an idea you claim to be great without any other explanation of it besides your own (which is clearly not enough to have other try it, as there are still people arguing about it).

I think this was one of the first rules taught to me in writing class.. always back up a statement with an example. It doesn't have to be your playing.. do you have ANY playing which demonstrates what you are talking about? I have no idea what completely ignoring any previously attempted musical explorations (which I don't think is possible) without having ever experienced any previously attemped musical explorations (which I also don't think is possible) would sound like.

You are always going to be influenced by what you have heard others do, and what you have done yourself. Does that mean you would be better off not experiencing anything else? Would a child be better off if he was kept in a dark box for his whole life? Taking what others have done will help you learn and grow faster than without it, and if you are able to become proficient in taking that experience and using it when appropriate and ignoring it when appropriate, then you have achieved mastery.. No amount of nonsensical abstract baseless and proofless argument in the contrary will change that.

It wouldn't be nearly so bad if you had even suggested this as a topic for discussion. Instead you adamantly proclaimed it as a rule the rest of us should live by. There are alot of naive newbies reading who would be discouraged by coming here to learn to play better, finding "oh I am just supposed to pick up the instrument and immediately play amazing music", subsequently try and fail to do so, and be discouraged.

I never realized credentials were needed to express views on this forum - and I am certainly not going to let myself be forced into doing that. Everybody here is free to say what ever he has to say, without people doubting his or her playing abilities. If you read back carefully, you'll notice that's what I met with.



You *are* free to say whatever you'd like to say on this site, as long as it fits within the rules. You are *not* free from having your abilities doubted - that is an earned privilege - as long as that doubt is expressed within forum rules.

And while no one is going to require you to make recordings available, they would certainly lend credibility to your postings.

As for my recordings: I have nothing satisfactory to show - satisfactory to myself that is. Cheap excuses like studio facilities etc. just don't count.

So then what excuse do you have for not posting music? Do you even own an instrument?

I never realized credentials were needed to express views on this forum - and I am certainly not going to let myself be forced into doing that. Everybody here is free to say what ever he has to say, without people doubting his or her playing abilities. If you read back carefully, you'll notice that's what I met with.
You want to tell me how to work on Ferraris, how my approach to working on Ferraris is all wrong or at least misguided and ill-informed, I'm gonna need to actually see some Ferraris you've worked on.

I never criticized anyone for showing or not showing their recordings. If you're proud, show'm off. Again you miss the point. It's not a matter of pride or showing off. There are a multiplicity of approaches and viewpoints and in order for ANYONE at any level of skill set to assess whether or not a particular viewpoint or approach of mine (for instance) is of value to them, it's kind of necessary for them to know how it worked out for me. They can listen to my playing, not so that they can love it and think I'm great or hate it and think I'm terrible, but so they can say to themselves "I have absolutely no desire to play like that. So I don't need to follow his advice." Or "That's the direction I'd like to head in, maybe I should spend a little time doing what he's done, I might get the same results." It's not about hierarchy, it's about relevance.

In the meantime, feel free to bash me if I try to show some modesty. Thanks, but I wasn't really waiting for permission...

Oh and I'm still trying to figure out how electric bass "unplugged" works, you dint address that....

Do you even own an instrument?

Yeah let's get back to basics here. We could be talking about bass fishing here for all I can tell from Chris' posts.

as Delmer said in o' brother where art tho ?,

"I'm with you fellers" :D

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTE5ODQ4MTk2Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMzgyMTc2._V1._ CR79,0,363,363_SS80_.jpg

When I'm practising, I generally use my bass without the amp plugged in...I can still hear all the notes and such, but that's probably not what he means.

I just noticed this thread on the DB side...

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=567078

Not a hint of dogmatism, so far as I can tell. It got me wondering... where is this dogmatism that is such a problem?

There's nothing to find because this is essentially a small problem that's been blown out of proportion.

There's nothing to find because this is essentially a small problem that's been blown out of proportion.

I'm just turning the piggy bank upside down and shaking it to see what else falls out.

Well, see, that's your problem. You think that there's something of value on the inside. I think Sparky's shooting blanks..

Oh and I'm still trying to figure out how electric bass "unplugged" works, you dint address that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akX4-eE_oRs&feature=PlayList&p=D0962FA67235765A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

They can listen to my playing, not so that they can love it and think I'm great or hate it and think I'm terrible, but so they can say to themselves "I have absolutely no desire to play like that. So I don't need to follow his advice." Or "That's the direction I'd like to head in, maybe I should spend a little time doing what he's done, I might get the same results." It's not about hierarchy, it's about relevance.

I think the problem is we keep explaining things to each other we already know.

Thanks anyway Ed for helping me set a personal thread starter record. You were great - 6 pages! Wow.

Still wonder why all the other brothers who contributed to this thread were not asked to show their recordings, unlike me. And don't go: you started this thread, so...

But your point is taken. I've got work to do. Now, does studio work really count? Or live recordings only (do you have any)? Any requests :D?

Do you know any AC/DC?

So let's sum this thread up as it sits now:

1. You shouldn't learn anything academic about music for the first 5 years just in case you discover the next big sound while fumbling around aimlessly.

2. Those who learned the academics at the same time they started playing can't think past it ever and they all sound exactly alike.

3. Educated musicians never have fun when they play because all they think about is stacking modes on top of modes.

Thanks Chris...glad you were able to get all that straight. I know it seems like everyone with an academic background overwhelmingly disagrees with you, but all the greats were misunderstood at first.

:p :D

Dear Jimmy,

I surely didn't mean any dichotomy, maybe just the outside corners of a spectrum. I question the importance of neither theory nor hearing. I only speak against conservatism, sustained by theoretical authority and the frustrations it might cause.

So it's not about the approach a player chooses to follow. That's up to her or him. I respect players who go their own way, with or without much theory (BTW, do you have recordings?)
I merely hoped to give some (some!) counterweight against the canonization of theoretical knowledge.

I just noticed this thread on the DB side...

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=567078

Not a hint of dogmatism, so far as I can tell. It got me wondering... where is this dogmatism that is such a problem?

So if there isn't, why mention this particular thread?

You *are* free to say whatever you'd like to say on this site, as long as it fits within the rules. You are *not* free from having your abilities doubted - that is an earned privilege - as long as that doubt is expressed within forum rules.

And while no one is going to require you to make recordings available, they would certainly lend credibility to your postings.


That's right - I have heard Ed play and he can certainly back up what he says, in terms of delivering the goods! :)

I think on a forum like this, there is a responsibility to give the best advice you can.

If you are giving advice that will lead to people scrabbling around in the dark for many years - then that is just ..."wrong" ....:hmm:

OK you can have an opinion, but if you are giving advice to other people - then you have a responsibility, to ensure that the approach works and is efficient etc.

Otherwise you are just being irresponsible and reckless with other people's lives....:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akX4-eE_oRs&feature=PlayList&p=D0962FA67235765A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Forgive my confusion, but there seems to be a cord coming out of ALL of those guitars, even the bass one. Maybe unplugged doesn't mean what I thought it meant....

Still wonder why all the other brothers who contributed to this thread were not asked to show their recordings, unlike me. And don't go: you started this thread, so... Because some of them, like PAC and Bruce and Mike Case etc. have already made those things available, generally unbidden. Others haven't really made any substantive contribution that I've found to be egregiously misinformed, while others are pretty obviously at the start of their path.

Now, does studio work really count? Or live recordings only (do you have any)? Any requests :D?I'm not sure what you mean "count"? Where did you go to hear sound files? The stuff at Raney's site was recorded (as is most jazz) with all of us playing the same song at the same time. There was some editing of the piano part on BEFORE I CLOSE MY EYES, otherwise, most of those are second or third takes in their entirety. If you went to the myspace page that stuff was mostly first or second full take, with no editing overdubbing etc. Just us playing.
If you go to the Talk Bass Double Bass Johnson Chronicles (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108756) website, you can stream some minidisc stuff from performances (COOL BLUES) or sessions (SOME OTHER TIME); there might be some other non-studio stuff in there, it's been awhile since I've been there and I can't remember what's up. There's a large number of guys on the DB side who have contributed stuff, the idea is to be able to put a sound with the people you type to regularly. All the folks that contributed are working towards the same thing, getting deeper into the music, and giving folks, all of whom have different skill sets, ideas, approaches, a chance to hear us play and talk about how we might accomplish that.

So it format doesn't matter. If it's what you sounded like on that day (that it was recorded), then that's what you sounded like. What somebody else sounds like has absolutely no effect on that. One still just sounds like one sounds like...

Just bite the bullet. Continuing to post about how you might but this method is this and that method is that blah, blah, blah. It's just another way to "not practice"....

Forgive my confusion, but there seems to be a cord coming out of ALL of those guitars, even the bass one. Maybe unplugged doesn't mean what I thought it meant....

Man such dogma! :hiding:

"Unplugged" is a Marketing term patented by MTV in order to sell more units of clapped-out bands who can't come up with any new tunes, but who look fairly presentable and can get fresh money for churning out the same stuff but in a relaxed-looking environment!! :p

What's more dogmatic than a premise that gets put forward, and then argued for a crapload of pages? ; }

There are plenty of examples of knowledgeable players who are well-versed in western harmonic theory who have expanded on different vectors of what is implicit in its study. Theory is a useful tool for building and analyzing, and it's open-ended: play or compose something that sounds like some boundaries are getting redefined and it's likely that the concepts in that can be "reverse-engineered" and understood within the parameters of "theory".

So theory is not a constraining clamp on a creative mind - it's actually as often an aid to developing one's own ideas to a higher level. It's only constraining to those who choose to use a subset of it for their own explorations (which is totally valid), or for those who haven't truly understood enough to apply it well.

What's more dogmatic than a premise that gets put forward, and then argued for a crapload of pages?

Actually if there is true "argument" of a topic - then that is in fact the very opposite of dogmatism.

If we were all truly dogmatic, then no argument or discussion would be possible! :eyebrow:

Actually if there is true "argument" of a topic - then that is in fact the very opposite of dogmatism.

Is it?

DOGMATIC:
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma

Obviously people are prone to strongly expressing their opinions and countering the strongly held opinions of others. And the opposing holders may in fact both subscribe to dogmas. Many a religious war would seem to bear this out.

If we were all truly dogmatic, then no argument or discussion would be possible! :eyebrow:

If individuals are dogmatic it simply means they pursue only their own opinions, or the particular dogma they have subscribed to. This does not mean that everybody has the same dogma provider.

Now that I've said my dogama I think I've been satisfied, and I will retire to listening to some Allen Holdsworth or something ; }

Forgive my confusion, but there seems to be a cord coming out of ALL of those guitars, even the bass one. Maybe unplugged doesn't mean what I thought it meant....

It's a confusing world where nothing seems to be the way it should. Anyway, I don't play double bass so in the groups I gig with it's just me who's plugging.

Because some of them, like PAC and Bruce and Mike Case etc. have already made those things available, generally unbidden. Others haven't really made any substantive contribution that I've found to be egregiously misinformed, while others are pretty obviously at the start of their path.

I'm not sure what you mean "count"? Where did you go to hear sound files? The stuff at Raney's site was recorded (as is most jazz) with all of us playing the same song at the same time. There was some editing of the piano part on BEFORE I CLOSE MY EYES, otherwise, most of those are second or third takes in their entirety. If you went to the myspace page that stuff was mostly first or second full take, with no editing overdubbing etc. Just us playing.
If you go to the Talk Bass Double Bass Johnson Chronicles (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108756) website, you can stream some minidisc stuff from performances (COOL BLUES) or sessions (SOME OTHER TIME); there might be some other non-studio stuff in there, it's been awhile since I've been there and I can't remember what's up. There's a large number of guys on the DB side who have contributed stuff, the idea is to be able to put a sound with the people you type to regularly. All the folks that contributed are working towards the same thing, getting deeper into the music, and giving folks, all of whom have different skill sets, ideas, approaches, a chance to hear us play and talk about how we might accomplish that.

So it format doesn't matter. If it's what you sounded like on that day (that it was recorded), then that's what you sounded like. What somebody else sounds like has absolutely no effect on that. One still just sounds like one sounds like...

Just bite the bullet. Continuing to post about how you might but this method is this and that method is that blah, blah, blah. It's just another way to "not practice"....

Again: point taken. And thanks for comparing me to a Ferrari ;) Hope it comes true.

I followed your link to the Jon Raney website, that's where.
Also listened to Michael Case's stuff.

As I said: I have work to do.

Is it?

DOGMATIC:
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma


So this is where the dog bites its tail. Because music theory isn't fact.

It's theory. May we never forget.

I'm out. /thread as far as I'm concerned.

So this is where the dog bites its tail. Because music theory isn't fact.

It's theory. May we never forget.

I'm out. /thread as far as I'm concerned.

You sir are an idiot.

Music theory is a fact. It is NOT string theory, the theory of relativity, creationism or evolution. It is a provable, repeatable, quantifiable fact.

This thread is ludicrous.

So this is where the dog bites its tail. Because music theory isn't fact.

Actually it's just as likely that it's called Theory because they didn't know what else to call it ; } - and then again, Einstein's thing was called "theory" too and it's been a tool for greater advancement than "alchemy" ever was ; }

Western Harmonic Theory encapsulates a lot of known relationships a lot better than any blurry fuzzy "whatever" stuff that's been put forward as some kind of replacement, going right down to the names of the notes and chords. And most people even of the self-professed ignorant variety are riding on the structures it represents, and are not too likely to be "creative" without also grokking some of the relationships therein, regardless.

But hey, come up with some FACT stuff that actually gets the job done better and the world might beat a path to your door. Until then, theories based on peer review - and of the expandable variety - beat vague formless proposals to ignore them, every time.

And thanks for comparing me to a Ferrari ;)

I'm wondering how much of your current dilemma is based on your penchant for the quick skim?
If you'll actually read what I typed, it will quickly become evident that I did not, in actuality, compare you to a Ferrari.

You want to engage in dialogue, you actually have to pay attention to what other people say. And kind of all the time, not just when they say something that comes close to fitting into one of your pigeonholes...

[QUOTE=onlyclave;7772399]You sir are an idiot.
QUOTE]

Rule #1: Respect your fellow members
All registered users must address fellow members with the utmost respect at all times. If you do not agree with a fellow member, be courteous in your response. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine".

Because of the limitations of text based communication, the expression of intent can be tricky. One of the most common triggers of rule violations is the misinterpretation of intent behind a post. Use smilies often, and remember, it never hurts to begin a response with "In my opinion"...

If you do not address everyone on the board with respect, be prepared to lose your membership.

[QUOTE=onlyclave;7772399]You sir are an idiot.
QUOTE]

Rule #1: Respect your fellow members
All registered users must address fellow members with the utmost respect at all times. If you do not agree with a fellow member, be courteous in your response. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine".

Because of the limitations of text based communication, the expression of intent can be tricky. One of the most common triggers of rule violations is the misinterpretation of intent behind a post. Use smilies often, and remember, it never hurts to begin a response with "In my opinion"...

If you do not address everyone on the board with respect, be prepared to lose your membership.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=520150

" New rule in the general instruction forum - Please Read
i've been perusing a lot of threads lately in this subforum, and have been apalled at the level of incomplete and just plain wrong answers being offered by people under the guise of being fact.

if you do not know what you are talking about, do NOT offer an answer to someone's theory question. that does not help anyone - in fact it goes a long way to hurting the discussion.

from here on out, the moderators in this forum are going to be given wide lattitude in correcting/deleting misinformation, and if someone is found to repeatedly post incorrect assumptions about music theory, this will be considered trolling.

discussions are fine. offering "assumptions" or "guesses" as actual "music theory" fact is -NOT FINE-. music theory is a quantifiable, learnable, knowable topic. LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT. and THEN post about it. ."

[QUOTE=Chris K;7773115]

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=520150

" New rule in the general instruction forum - Please Read
i've been perusing a lot of threads lately in this subforum, and have been apalled at the level of incomplete and just plain wrong answers being offered by people under the guise of being fact.

if you do not know what you are talking about, do NOT offer an answer to someone's theory question. that does not help anyone - in fact it goes a long way to hurting the discussion.

from here on out, the moderators in this forum are going to be given wide lattitude in correcting/deleting misinformation, and if someone is found to repeatedly post incorrect assumptions about music theory, this will be considered trolling.

discussions are fine. offering "assumptions" or "guesses" as actual "music theory" fact is -NOT FINE-. music theory is a quantifiable, learnable, knowable topic. LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT. and THEN post about it. ."

The dogma is killing me. I need to be free with the flowers and the trees, where no recording devices or written music exist.

Is it?

DOGMATIC:
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma



Wow...how in the world did you miss Bruce's point?

Western Harmonic Theory encapsulates a lot of known relationships a lot better than any blurry fuzzy "whatever" stuff that's been put forward as some kind of replacement, going right down to the names of the notes and chords. And most people even of the self-professed ignorant variety are riding on the structures it represents, and are not too likely to be "creative" without also grokking some of the relationships therein, regardless.

But hey, come up with some FACT stuff that actually gets the job done better and the world might beat a path to your door. Until then, theories based on peer review - and of the expandable variety - beat vague formless proposals to ignore them, every time.

I wouldn't dare to say anything different from what you say here, because you absolutely hit the nail on the head.

Western music theory resulted from centuries of western musical experience. Therefore it is a very important body of knowledge. Therefore I studied it professionally. Therefore I wholeheartedly support Mr. John Turners very necessary rule quoted by onlyclave (who IMHO could do with some manners).

But though music theory is important, to be studied, to be preserved etc. etc. it is with the utmost respect to everyone of you (how low can you go?) that I have to stick to my (most humble) opinion that it's NOT quantifiable, therefore not objectively true, therefore subjective and subject to discussion, therefore not to be imposed on others as the one and only truth.

And for those among you who would wish to catch up on their knowledge of music history and the formation of the western concept of harmony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony

Wow...how in the world did you miss Bruce's point?

Maybe you need to explain it to me.

Because mainly what I saw an assumption that if we were all dogmatic that we wouldn't argue. It appears to me that opposing dogmas have driven some of the world's worst human-triggered disasters (of which this thread is but a paltry reflection).

You sir are an idiot.

Music theory is a fact. It is NOT string theory, the theory of relativity, creationism or evolution. It is a provable, repeatable, quantifiable fact.

This thread is ludicrous.

please (i can't believe this thread is still going, so my apologies) think about this.

the existence of the harmonic series = fact.

there are twelve notes in an octave = not fact

whereas the first is generally considered a physical law, having any specific number of tones to the octave (and following a particular system of tuning, notation, and performance among other things) is not. a system of 'music theory' only serves that system for which it was developed. and since every musical system is to some extent arbitrary, it follows that neither a musical system or the theory attached to it is fact.

on a deeper level, there is some 'fact' in music, but only when it pertains to quantitative, numerical representations of rhythm and pitch relationships (which are really both aspects of time).

You sir are an idiot.

Music theory is a fact. It is NOT string theory, the theory of relativity, creationism or evolution. It is a provable, repeatable, quantifiable fact.

This thread is ludicrous.

Music is an art form and a form of communication, where people can express their feelings and emotions. Music theory (what sounds good and what doesn't) is theory, not fact. Your sentence "Music theory is fact" is illogical. A theory can not be a fact. A fact has already been proven. A theory needs to be proven, although you can use a theory like a tool, which is what we are doing in Western Music. We should all learn how to use our tools, but a tool can be altered.
(I think you owe Chris an apology for calling him an idiot. :hmm:)

This thread needs Jack Kevorkian.

Since music theory is giving names to sounds that already exist then it has already been proven as fact. I think the OP is hung up on the semantics of the name "Music Theory". There is nothing theoretical about the analysis and categorization of sounds that already exist. It is concrete.

Perhaps calling Chris an idiot is wrong, and let apologize publicly to him for saying that. It makes no sense for me to edit the previous post since it has been quoted multiple times here. But, let me go on the record as saying that this thread smells strongly of a troll...

Maybe you need to explain it to me.

Because mainly what I saw an assumption that if we were all dogmatic that we wouldn't argue. It appears to me that opposing dogmas have driven some of the world's worst human-triggered disasters (of which this thread is but a paltry reflection).

nevermind. i don't think there's a western civilization thread to continue this conversation in.

Anyway, I've found the sure fire way to end dogmatic approaches to any style of music. Simply play a lot of notes that nine out of ten of both schooled and unschooled audience members will agree "don't fit". Make sure through inebriation or "altered conciousness" that these notes are rather random and thus, driven by inspiration.

Works every time!

Of course, eventually a new dogma will be born of it, and a sub-genre will be formed.

Since music theory is giving names to sounds that already exist then it has already been proven as fact. I think the OP is hung up on the semantics of the name "Music Theory". There is nothing theoretical about the analysis and categorization of sounds that already exist. It is concrete.

Perhaps calling Chris an idiot is wrong, and let apologize publicly to him for saying that. It makes no sense for me to edit the previous post since it has been quoted multiple times here. But, let me go on the record as saying that this thread smells strongly of a troll...

Just because trolls live under bridges doesn't mean they are unclean.

Perhaps calling Chris an idiot is wrong, and let apologize publicly to him for saying that. It makes no sense for me to edit the previous post since it has been quoted multiple times here. But, let me go on the record as saying that this thread smells strongly of a troll...

So, now you are calling him a troll! :smug:

I am going to take a chance here and recommend a book that I think is relevant to this thread. (I got blasted once before on TB for recommending this book! Yes, there are a few mistakes, but he addresses them on the website.)

http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0525949690 or
http://www.yourbrainonmusic.com/

Actually, I listened to the audio book, which was great. In the book, the author "describes the components of music, such as timbre, rhythm, pitch, and harmony and ties them to neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, cognitive psychology, and evolution." (wikipedia) He talks about what is happening in your brain when you listen and play music. He also gives multiple theories about the evolution of music.

I am going to take a chance here and recommend a book that I think is relevant to this thread. (I got blasted once before on TB for recommending this book! Yes, there are a few mistakes, but he addresses them on the website.)

http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0525949690 or
http://www.yourbrainonmusic.com/

Actually, I listened to the audio book, which was great. In the book, the author "describes the components of music, such as timbre, rhythm, pitch, and harmony and ties them to neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, cognitive psychology, and evolution." (wikipedia) He talks about what is happening in your brain when you listen and play music. He also gives multiple theories about the evolution of music.

Sounds very interesting. I'll have to give it a spin. No big deal to get blasted by the dogmatic doctrinaires.

So, now you are calling him a troll! :smug:

Who you callin' a troll?:scowl:

Your sentence "Music theory is fact" is illogical. A theory can not be a fact. A fact has already been proven. A theory needs to be proven, although you can use a theory like a tool, which is what we are doing in Western Music.

There is more than one definiting of the word theory, and your use above is incorrect.


the⋅o⋅ry
http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

–noun, plural -ries. 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.6.contemplation or speculation.7.guess or conjecture.

There is more than one definiting of the word theory, and your use above is incorrect.

OK. Your right. There are multiple definitions for the word "theory". I will stand by my statement that the sentence "Music theory is fact" is illogical.

Who you callin' a troll?:scowl:

I didn't call anyone a troll!! :rollno:

I think we can all agree that Dogma is not man's best friend.

Ben Affleck, Dogma:

http://www.zap2it.com/media/photo/2009-03/45332982.jpg

Skill portion from above image:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/522368010_909c5fa26f.jpg?v=0

Dear Jimmy,

So it's not about the approach a player chooses to follow. That's up to her or him. I respect players who go their own way, with or without much theory (BTW, do you have recordings?)
I merely hoped to give some (some!) counterweight against the canonization of theoretical knowledge.
I got a few but it's all too filthy to post on TB ;)

Perhaps calling Chris an idiot is wrong, and let apologize publicly to him for saying that. ...

Accepted, my friend. No hard feelings.

The confusion on 'theory' is my fault, Í'm afraid. IMHO in the term 'music theory' theory means 'body of knowledge', not 'hypothesis'.

Music theory can be called fact in the historical sense of the word fact. Modes, for instance, are historical fact. They exist as a logical system that was developed in the past.

But music theory isn't fact in the way fact exists in the natural sciences. And even there we have some very metaphysical discussions going on.

The moon is there, but wether we like or hate the moon is defined by cultural factors. With the Pythagorean intervals it's pretty much the same thing.

However trivial the difference between historical and physical fact may seem, it's important, because some people on this forum tend to present their views on music theory as not-to-be-discussed fact. And presenting theory as fact we call dogma.

The confusion on 'theory' is my fault, Í'm afraid. IMHO in the term 'music theory' theory means 'body of knowledge', not 'hypothesis'.

And presenting theory as fact we call dogma.

But as in this context, theory means "body of knowledge" or as in the dictionary definition : principles or methods - then it is equivalant to "fact(s)".

And so to present them as such, is not dogma - but rather, is good advice - as opposed to misinformation!! :eyebrow:

Just a quick reply as I believe that I do not possess the necessary knowledge fundamental to debate the issue.

As I understood it, you are against addressing certain variables to changes as if they are the best(and sometimes only) possible scenarios. Especially because setting "matches"(as in A goes with B) would go against the essence of creativity even though the choice is proven to work? Is that correct?

It must be. I believe it would be very hard to interpret it differently. Though I could be wrong(one has to keep that possibility in mind! :).) If so, then why would anyone argue against that?

That is what confused me.

Maybe I am not thinking enough about the issue in its practical sense. But again, going against such recommendations in an improvisational context is not what is being discussed... right?

Since music theory is giving names to sounds that already exist then it has already been proven as fact. I think the OP is hung up on the semantics of the name "Music Theory". There is nothing theoretical about the analysis and categorization of sounds that already exist. It is concrete.

Perhaps calling Chris an idiot is wrong, and let apologize publicly to him for saying that. It makes no sense for me to edit the previous post since it has been quoted multiple times here. But, let me go on the record as saying that this thread smells strongly of a troll...


Surely an apology is more appropriate from any person providing misinformation, which would hold inexperienced players back...? :hmm:

But as in this context, theory means "body of knowledge" or as in the dictionary definition : principles or methods - then it is equivalant to "fact(s)".

And so to present them as such, is not dogma - but rather, is good advice - as opposed to misinformation!! :eyebrow:
See, Chris' whole premise is based on the idea that if you start right in with theory, then you can't think for yourself and you've imposed limitations on yourself that you wouldn't have had if you just fumbled around for a few years and then learned theory. What he doesn't get is that for everything you can do musically, there is a theory lesson to explain it. So these folks who think they're doing something original when they come up with a sound you never heard before? Well maybe you never heard it THAT WAY before, but trust me...there's a theory lesson to cover it.

BTW, the number of people who actually accomplish that is miniscule, with or without theory.

Or maybe he feels he himself has taken a dogmatic approach and is placing the blame elsewhere.

Free yourself, Chris, free yourself!

http://www.navegabem.com/media/free-yourself-blog.jpg

Hippie.

Back when I was more active in this thread, I was on a different side than Chris.

I accept that for everything you play, there's an aspect of theory to go along with it. What I wanted was not to abandon theory, but more to open up the access to theoretical approaches that are rather less common in the west. Go on teaching jazz theory and harmony, classical theory and harmony, but make it easier for those who wish too to access, say, the maqam system, or gamelan.

I have no problems at all with western musical theory; to abandon it is not my intention. All I really wanted was a somewhat expanded access to theoretical approaches to music that is not commonplace here in the west.

This kind of reminds me of a story I read somewhere. I think it was Wynton Marsalis:

"Some time ago, the tenor saxophonist Frank Foster was playing a street concert from the Jazzmobile in Harlem. He called for a blues in B-flat. A young tenor player began to play "out" from the first chorus, playing sounds that had no relationship to the harmonic progression or rhythmic setting. Foster stopped him.

"What are you doing?"

"Just playing what I feel."

"Well, feel something in B-flat, motherf**ker."

Back when I was more active in this thread, I was on a different side than Chris.

I accept that for everything you play, there's an aspect of theory to go along with it. What I wanted was not to abandon theory, but more to open up the access to theoretical approaches that are rather less common in the west. Go on teaching jazz theory and harmony, classical theory and harmony, but make it easier for those who wish too to access, say, the maqam system, or gamelan.

I have no problems at all with western musical theory; to abandon it is not my intention. All I really wanted was a somewhat expanded access to theoretical approaches to music that is not commonplace here in the west.

that's exactly it. a strong basis in harmonic theory, not associated with any particular form of music but with harmony itself, would be the most useful springboard into specialization. not only would that make all different kinds of world music equally accessible, but it would also encourage students to invent and experiment with their own theoretical creations.

I accept that for everything you play, there's an aspect of theory to go along with it. What I wanted was not to abandon theory, but more to open up the access to theoretical approaches that are rather less common in the west. Go on teaching jazz theory and harmony, classical theory and harmony, but make it easier for those who wish too to access, say, the maqam system, or gamelan.

I have no problems at all with western musical theory; to abandon it is not my intention. All I really wanted was a somewhat expanded access to theoretical approaches to music that is not commonplace here in the west.

The music teacher that I kind of quoted at the start of this thread tought music history & theory on traditional harmony and other systems,
like gamelan- & minimal music, Indian and Asian tonal systems, avant garde approach toward these methods, etc..
All with examples and theoretical explanation.

Then, playing in a band the guitarist says, the only logical approach to make a song is a blues scheme and 3 chords.
And after experimenting for months with all kinds of possible variations on song building and welding parts and themes
together; we should just play straight forward rock & roll, that's what the audience likes.

Just to show you that an expanded approach to music isn't always appreciated by your fellow musicians that rather play the blues.

See, Chris' whole premise is based on the idea that if you start right in with theory, then you can't think for yourself and you've imposed limitations on yourself that you wouldn't have had if you just fumbled around for a few years and then learned theory. What he doesn't get is that for everything you can do musically, there is a theory lesson to explain it. So these folks who think they're doing something original when they come up with a sound you never heard before? Well maybe you never heard it THAT WAY before, but trust me...there's a theory lesson to cover it.

BTW, the number of people who actually accomplish that is miniscule, with or without theory.

I fully agree with you (and I DID get that.)
Mostly because you move from practical play to theory, seeking understanding.
Also I would never deny the positive effects of theretical knowledge on creativity.

But genius is scarce, as you say. With me, anyway. So let us not bury it under wagonloads of theoretical homework, certainly not when giving advice to beginners.

Or maybe he feels he himself has taken a dogmatic approach and is placing the blame elsewhere.

Free yourself, Chris, free yourself!

http://www.navegabem.com/media/free-yourself-blog.jpg

I'm much too old to break a leg.

And I''m obstinate enough already.

This kind of reminds me of a story I read somewhere. I think it was Wynton Marsalis:

"Some time ago, the tenor saxophonist Frank Foster was playing a street concert from the Jazzmobile in Harlem. He called for a blues in B-flat. A young tenor player began to play "out" from the first chorus, playing sounds that had no relationship to the harmonic progression or rhythmic setting. Foster stopped him.

"What are you doing?"

"Just playing what I feel."

"Well, feel something in B-flat, motherf**ker."

So he got into a bad mode.

that's exactly it. a strong basis in harmonic theory, not associated with any particular form of music but with harmony itself, would be the most useful springboard into specialization. not only would that make all different kinds of world music equally accessible, but it would also encourage students to invent and experiment with their own theoretical creations.

Hear, hear!

The music teacher that I kind of quoted at the start of this thread tought music history & theory on traditional harmony and other systems,
like gamelan- & minimal music, Indian and Asian tonal systems, avant garde approach toward these methods, etc..
All with examples and theoretical explanation.

Then, playing in a band the guitarist says, the only logical approach to make a song is a blues scheme and 3 chords.
And after experimenting for months with all kinds of possible variations on song building and welding parts and themes
together; we should just play straight forward rock & roll, that's what the audience likes.

Just to show you that an expanded approach to music isn't always appreciated by your fellow musicians that rather play the blues.

Your story GIVES me the blues.

The music teacher that I kind of quoted at the start of this thread tought music history & theory on traditional harmony and other systems,
like gamelan- & minimal music, Indian and Asian tonal systems, avant garde approach toward these methods, etc..
All with examples and theoretical explanation.

Then, playing in a band the guitarist says, the only logical approach to make a song is a blues scheme and 3 chords.
And after experimenting for months with all kinds of possible variations on song building and welding parts and themes
together; we should just play straight forward rock & roll, that's what the audience likes.

Just to show you that an expanded approach to music isn't always appreciated by your fellow musicians that rather play the blues.

Nor should it always be! I love blues, rock and roll, and traditional music. And I'd love to play it in a band setting, too. If I'm going to experiment, it's gonna be with a bunch of like-minded folks who are happy with it.

There were folks who didn't like what Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, and those other cats were doing with jazz when the bebop scene first began- and that's entirely cool. It's up to people to choose what kind of music they play and like. All I really want is that for those of us who want to experiment a bit there's more resources and access.

I have no desire to force my experimental music on everyone- I listen to and enjoy Merzbow, but I'm not gonna push him on folk that don't like it. All I want is that people who want to experiment can with a bit more ease.

In fact, I think the existence of musicians who would rather just play the blues is a valuable part of the music world, and exemplifies an important part of creativity. If everyone wanted to play the same thing, be it crazy experimental stuff or blues, the world of music would be a sad place- because we wouldn't have either forward progression, or the living tradition of the past to draw on.

I'm cool with varied opinions musically. All I want is easier access to the less conventional stuff- easier access doesn't mean forcing it on folk.

Your story GIVES me the blues.

I'm glad to help you to some inspiration or the right mood for some moonlight howling.;)