Hypothetical Question - 2 Bassist play the same, but one does not know theory

[Burlington]

OK, stick with me here----

Two bassplayers. They can both play the same licks exactly the same, their technique is exactly the same, and their sound is exactly the same.

One knows theory and one does not. Does the one who is trained in theory a better bassist? I've heard many people say it does, and that does not make any sense to me, as you ears can't tell a difference.

I'm not trying to troll anyone, and I totally understand the benefits of learning theory, but it is astonishing to me how many people will blow off other musicians if they find that they don't know any theory.

Mods, if this is an inappropiate topic, or it belongs somewhere else, please do what you must.

[CrispyDelicious]

Your ears will tell the difference when you ask them to read sheet, or improvise a series of chord changes.

[Selta]

IMO, the theory part will stand out more in composition, improv, and communication aspects. I don't even know my theory very well, but I've learned a lot from listening and mimicking. However, in an improv situation I know I'm not as well off as someone who knows theory. I can get by? Sure. Also in composition... I'm really feeling it in this area. When I sit down to write a tune, I hear some phrases in my head, but I don't know how to connect them or make it all flow.
Then, add in when I'm talking with muso's who know theory like the back of their hand, it makes it difficult. "Here, play this _________" where they want me to play something, and I can't. Then, when I'm trying to explain what I'm doing, unless it falls under some basic theory, I often just have to play it to get my point across.

[macaroni tony]

Originally Posted by CrispyDelicious

Your ears will tell the difference when you ask them to read sheet, or improvise a series of chord changes.

Yep.

Now if you're talking about a particular song, and both bassists already know the song, then that evens the playing field. But that's not all there is to being a bassist...

[Burlington]

Originally Posted by macaroni tony

Yep.

Now if you're talking about a particular song, and both bassists already know the song, then that evens the playing field. But that's not all there is to being a bassist...

But if you only play covers, then that is all there is to being a bassist, right?

[Jazz Ad]

If you play covers, knowing theory will help you learn the zillion songs you need to know much faster.
That or you can keep playing music by the numbers.
Pointless discussion IMHO.

[Selta]

Originally Posted by Burlington

But if you only play covers, then that is all there is to being a bassist, right?

Yes. If you limit the context of the question down to two bassist playing top 40 covers, you're less likely to tell the difference. However, I still would venture to say that no bassist (or musician, for that matter) plays cover tunes note for note, and even then you'd still notice the theory-equipped bassist over the other.

[macaroni tony]

Originally Posted by Burlington

But if you only play covers, then that is all there is to being a bassist, right?

Well, that's all there is to playing covers. But at this point, it's starting to sound a bit like "What's the best blah blah for blah blah."

So if your question is, "How necessary is it to know your theory if you will only be playing in a cover band, where you will generally be expected to know top 40 or learn them by ear in a brief period of time?" Then the answer is, of course, a "Not really necessary at all."

[jonathan_matos5]

knowing the music theory will greatly improve on their ability to improvise parts when given a lead sheet or chord chart to follow. also more creative solos

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by jonathan_matos5

knowing the music theory will greatly improve on their ability to improvise parts when given a lead sheet or chord chart to follow. also more creative solos

Hi.

[jonathan_matos5]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

Hi.

two can play that game.

i mean hi.

[L-A]

Originally Posted by Burlington

But if you only play covers, then that is all there is to being a bassist, right?

Playing covers is not all there is to being a bassist. But yeah, if you don't want to improvise, read or compose that's all there is to being a cover-playing bassist.

EDIT: I have to add, learning a song is both easier and faster when you understand it. Like, fifteen minutes versus three hours if it's a fast riff that repeats through modes or chord changes. In one case, you have to learn a ton of notes one by one because they change, in the other you understand the line and alter it according to the structure of the song.

[hover]

Wuh? I do not know theory, but have damn good ears, and know the fretboard inside and out, a good sense of melody, and have composed or so-composed well over 200 songs in the past 23 years, involving counter melodies, chord phrasings and not just riding the root. Does that make me a crap bassist? I mean, I have no interest at ALL in taking a solo. Bass solos bore me to freakin tears.

[Skitch it!]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

If you play covers, knowing theory will help you learn the zillion songs you need to know much faster.
That or you can keep playing music by the numbers.
Pointless discussion IMHO.

+1 This.

[Pacman]

let's move this discussion to General Instruction.

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Originally Posted by hover

Wuh? I do not know theory, but have damn good ears, and know the fretboard inside and out, a good sense of melody, and have composed or so-composed well over 200 songs in the past 23 years, involving counter melodies, chord phrasings and not just riding the root.

Sounds like you do know some theory then. Unless you're just guessing every time you're doing each of those things. You may not know the technical names of the things you are doing/playing, but if you still know certain things work while others don't, then you know something.

[puddin tame]

Originally Posted by Burlington

OK, stick with me here----

Two bassplayers. They can both play the same licks exactly the same, their technique is exactly the same, and their sound is exactly the same.

One knows theory and one does not. Does the one who is trained in theory a better bassist? I've heard many people say it does, and that does not make any sense to me, as you ears can't tell a difference.

I'm not trying to troll anyone, and I totally understand the benefits of learning theory, but it is astonishing to me how many people will blow off other musicians if they find that they don't know any theory.

Mods, if this is an inappropiate topic, or it belongs somewhere else, please do what you must.

when you say "play the same licks" do you just mean play the same licks, or are you talking about improvising and/or composing the same licks? unless you can create then you might as well be replaced by a robot.

you'll also be a better player to play with if you can communicate information about the music in common terms of theory

[kb9wyz]

I think that knowing theory makes you a better musician, but doesn't mean you're a better player.

[puddin tame]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

Hi.

unless you're as talented as jimi hendrix, which no one here is, then believing in this point only serves to hurt ones self

I think that knowing theory makes you a better musician, but doesn't mean you're a better player.

That is contradictory. What is the purpose of playing? to make music.

[hover]

Originally Posted by Bryan R. Tyler

Sounds like you do know some theory then. You may not know the technical names of the things you are doing/playing, but if you still know certain things work while others don't, then you know something.

Thank you Brian, I guess that's what I was hinting around at. I very much would love more of a foundation in the hows and whys for sure, I do not eschew the idea of learning, don't get me wrong...but I guess the OP & the "play music by the numbers" comment might have read weird to me / prompted my reply.