My thoughts about theory

[Distant Cousin]

I'm just thinking aloud really. I'm sure most people will disagree with me but I've been reading the "Triads in Minor Scales" thread and I have no idea what anyone is talking about in there. I know a bit of theory but I'm by no means *good* at it - I've been stuck on the same basic concepts (harmony beyond 7 or 9 chords etc., for example) for several years now. My thoughts on theory are these:

It's widely regarded that people learn in different ways. For example, some people can learn from being told something, whereas others need to be shown or try it for themselves etc. I've said to a few people, both on here and in my personal life that I think that I'm not theory minded - I can't think of things in theory and if I was going to be good at theory I would be good at it now, or continuing to make progress. EVERYONE I've said this to either disagrees or that I'm plain wrong.

I don't see how people can think that music theory and written music is a way for everyone to learn music. For me, both theory and reading are extremely difficult, very nearly too difficult. I can never ever seem to make any progress with either.

I've always been a visual learner. I have to be shown something, then try it for myself. When I'm learning songs I either learn by ear, or work off a lead sheet if someone gives me one. I can play around with the given chords; that's as far as my theory knowledge will take me.
Learning from written theory and music doesn't work for me. Nothing makes sense to me - I can't process the information at all, even when you apply it to a bass.

I suppose there's no other way of teaching theory and obviously there isn't any other way of teaching someone how to read music, but it frustrates me that I seem to be expected to just automatically be able to learn like this.


Long post, and mostly rambling, but I needed to vent somewhere!

[Steve Dixon]

theory knowledge for its own sake is pretty pointless - it's there to give us a way of explaining/communicating/discussing musical occurrences...

the way to learn theory and to have it stick is to PLAY the things that are discussed... you can only really understand music theory if you can HEAR the theory in action

I'd beg anyone discussing theory on Talkbass to always try to relate it to practical applications as a musician... instead of just getting into a willy waving competition about who knows the most theory, imagine how much we'd get done if every theory thread had 10 excellent examples on how to USE the ideas discussed

application, application, application... the '3 A's'

[retardedpossum]

Originally Posted by Steve Dixon

theory knowledge for its own sake is pretty pointless - it's there to give us a way of explaining/communicating/discussing musical occurrences...

the way to learn theory and to have it stick is to PLAY the things that are discussed... you can only really understand music theory if you can HEAR the theory in action

I'd beg anyone discussing theory on Talkbass to always try to relate it to practical applications as a musician... instead of just getting into a willy waving competition about who knows the most theory, imagine how much we'd get done if every theory thread had 10 excellent examples on how to USE the ideas discussed

application, application, application... the '3 A's'

excellent idea

[tZer]

I am interested in learning and how the brain processes information. I am in no way a brain scholar but whenever there's a PBS special on neuroplasticity or "The Musician's Mind" - I get easily engrossed.

Distant Cousin, I have a question. Did you study music under the age of 10? Take piano or some other formal, reading music, playing instrument activity?

[Edit]Oh yeah... Big +1 to what Steve Dixon said. Nothing makes theory stick like attaching it to some reality![/Edit]

[Febs]

Originally Posted by Distant Cousin

I've always been a visual learner. I have to be shown something, then try it for myself. When I'm learning songs I either learn by ear, or work off a lead sheet if someone gives me one. I can play around with the given chords; that's as far as my theory knowledge will take me.
Learning from written theory and music doesn't work for me. Nothing makes sense to me - I can't process the information at all, even when you apply it to a bass.

I can appreciate your problem. It was much harder for me to write my post in that thread than it would have been to simply sit down with a piece of manuscript paper and write it out in notation.

Even better, if we were in the same room with a piano, I could probably show you in 30 seconds what took my 30 minutes to write in that other thread.

[tZer]

Originally Posted by Febs

...Even better, if we were in the same room with a piano, I could probably show you in 30 seconds what took my 30 minutes to write in that other thread.

And another +1 for this!

Nothing make theory stick to something real better than a piano!!

[0volts]

First things first, at the very best I'm a novice player. I'm probably in the bottom ten percent of players as far as chops, knowledge, whatever. I'm doing my best to learn theory and learn to read music. Sure it would be fun to just learn songs by ear/tablature or whatever, but my guess is a few years from now I'm not gonna look back and wonder why I wasted my time learning that stuff. I'm not saying its the only way to become a good bass player, but I sure as hell can't see where it would hurt you. Maybe it isn't for everybody, but I highly doubt it would do anything but add to your ability.

[mambo4]

10 useful examples takes a lot of time to type.
"dude just stack thirds!" is easier to type, and technically correct, but completely unenlightening...

Forums are actually a very bad place for teaching/learning theory. You really need a competent teacher who you can ask questions face to face.

+1 to theory with practical examples...and on a piano.

I feel kinda sad that so many seem to get overwhelmed and discouraged by the apparent complexity and poorly communicated forum answers. Theory is not absolutely necessary to play well, but once grasped it can save a lot of trial and error worth the struggle, IMHO.

[Muaguana]

I find it odd that you have trouble learning to read music yet are a visual learner... you can't read notes but you can read lead sheets? There must be something I'm missing because I don't see the problem here.

Not trying to suggest that theory is the only way to learn music, because it's all dependent on how you function in relation to music and how you learn; I'm just confused about this post.

[Noseferatu]

I said in another thread that while I think theory is great and all, I'm much more impressed by someone who can play good, melodic, musical basslines and improvise well than by someone who knows all the "rules" and can do the same thing.

[tehbassist]

Originally Posted by Distant Cousin

I'm just thinking aloud really. I'm sure most people will disagree with me but I've been reading the "Triads in Minor Scales" thread and I have no idea what anyone is talking about in there. I know a bit of theory but I'm by no means *good* at it - I've been stuck on the same basic concepts (harmony beyond 7 or 9 chords etc., for example) for several years now. My thoughts on theory are these:

It's widely regarded that people learn in different ways. For example, some people can learn from being told something, whereas others need to be shown or try it for themselves etc. I've said to a few people, both on here and in my personal life that I think that I'm not theory minded - I can't think of things in theory and if I was going to be good at theory I would be good at it now, or continuing to make progress. EVERYONE I've said this to either disagrees or that I'm plain wrong.

I don't see how people can think that music theory and written music is a way for everyone to learn music. For me, both theory and reading are extremely difficult, very nearly too difficult. I can never ever seem to make any progress with either.

I've always been a visual learner. I have to be shown something, then try it for myself. When I'm learning songs I either learn by ear, or work off a lead sheet if someone gives me one. I can play around with the given chords; that's as far as my theory knowledge will take me.
Learning from written theory and music doesn't work for me. Nothing makes sense to me - I can't process the information at all, even when you apply it to a bass.

I suppose there's no other way of teaching theory and obviously there isn't any other way of teaching someone how to read music, but it frustrates me that I seem to be expected to just automatically be able to learn like this.


Long post, and mostly rambling, but I needed to vent somewhere!

I'm a visual learner, I think in pictures and patterns and that makes most theory fairly easy for me.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by Noseferatu

I said in another thread that while I think theory is great and all, I'm much more impressed by someone who can play good, melodic, musical basslines and improvise well than by someone who knows all the "rules" and can do the same thing.

While playing good basslines and being able to improvise well are both valuable skills, they are just a few of the many tools a well-rounded working musician needs to have in his toolbox.

[mambo4]

Originally Posted by Noseferatu

I'm much more impressed by someone who can play good, melodic, musical basslines and improvise well than by someone who knows all the "rules" and can do the same thing.

The belief that music theory is rules is misguided and unfortunate. It limits otherwise creative and talented players because they don't want to be "held down by the man"

Music theory is a way to communicate about the patterns underlying melody and harmony, and extreemley useful patterns to know at that.

[St Drogo]

Originally Posted by Distant Cousin

I don't see how people can think that music theory and written music is a way for everyone to learn music. For me, both theory and reading are extremely difficult, very nearly too difficult. I can never ever seem to make any progress with either.

Here here. The point with music theory though, is that it's not the notes and rules themselves. Sheet music and explicit music theory (like, IDK, "a chord is a stack of thirds" or stuff like that) is just a way of solidifying the underlying things in music. Like you say, everybody learns differently, and some people work better this way. You could conceivably also know a lot about music theory, without knowing anything about music theory explicitly, just by feeling and experience. Hell, if you're a synaesthisiac, you might be able to smell music.

You can choose to learn the theory and approach music in that way, learn it and approach it a whole different way, or not bother with it at all. But irregardspectively of you knowing theory or not, you will be using it when you make music.

It's the scientific approach to music, if you will. But it is not the soul. IMO.

[MalcolmAmos]

Originally Posted by Distant Cousin
I'm just thinking aloud really. I'm sure most people will disagree with me but I've been reading the "Triads in Minor Scales" thread and I have no idea what anyone is talking about in there.

In that string the OP's question was hard to understand. Because of that we went off on a wild goose chase. Building a clock instead of just giving him the time. I doubt anyone could gain much from that string. Whole bunch of goobodegoop.

I'm a visual learner too. We visual learners learn theory in an easy chair reading charts -- or like has been said seeing it on the keyboard. IMHO to understand theory a person must start at the beginning and take it in steps. Where is the beginning? IMHO it all starts with the chromatic scale and how to use that to make the major scale. That WWHWWWH thing, i.e. if you can read and play from standard notation you really do not need to know the theory involved in the song, we just need to be able to play the notes - by rote and trust that the songwriter knew his theory and got it all done correctly.

O'h yes, while we are at it, again IMHO reading music is a skill. I do not consider reading music as being a part of music theory. Music theory is the understanding of how music thinks. To understand that we should learn how to read all those fly specks on the paper. They go hand in hand, however, can and should be studied separately.

Good luck.

[bertbassplayer]

To those who jumped on the OP because he said he was visual but had trouble with reading music, it's because he isn't a visual learner.

Originally Posted by Distant Cousin

It's widely regarded that people learn in different ways. For example, some people can learn from being told something, whereas others need to be shown or try it for themselves etc.
I've always been a visual learner. I have to be shown something, then try it for myself. When I'm learning songs I either learn by ear, or work off a lead sheet if someone gives me one. I can play around with the given chords; that's as far as my theory knowledge will take me.

According to his description he's a Tactile/Kinesthetic Learner, not a Visual Learner. He's got his learning styles mixed up.

As for the importance of theory, I think it is important. However I think too many people rely too heavily on the internet to learn things instead of seeking out instructors. While the internet is wonderful because of the over abundance of information, it benefits visual and aural learners more than it benefits the tactile/kinesthetic. For tactile/kinesthetic there's no substitute for live instruction.

[Mayers]

In my case, when I started playing bass ( and it was my first musical instrument ), my teacher showed me some theory to get through the song. So I learn rythm, note on a musical sheet and a lot of stuff that way.

Then I went to college in music where I learn a lot of stuff that I haven't use since because I don't play jazz quite as often anymore.

So ... I think the more you know the better you can get. It is the same think a learning a language. Even in your mothertongue you can learn more words and sentences structures to expend the quality of your speaking/writting.

[Distant Cousin]

Originally Posted by bertbassplayer

To those who jumped on the OP because he said he was visual but had trouble with reading music, it's because he isn't a visual learner.



According to his description he's a Tactile/Kinesthetic Learner, not a Visual Learner. He's got his learning styles mixed up.

Had a quick read about the two and I think you're right! I'm a Kinesthetic learner when it comes to music. I think I got the two confused because with some other things I'm very much a visual learner. I do think of music in patterns though, so I don't know, maybe it's a combination of the two? I don't know, but there's something about written music that makes it very hard for me to process the information. Whereas if I have a lead sheet, I can see FMaj7 (for example), and I know the basic notes I can play around with, because I can remember the pattern and so on. I can stretch as far as to adding a 9th or an 11th over things like that but that really is as advanced as my theory knowledge gets.

Also, I'm surprised this thread got so many replies! I expected my anti-theory rant to be ignored but it's turning into a pretty interesting discussion!

My bass teacher at uni uses a piano and a bass to explain the theory. I spent most of my first year stuck on this fairly basic aspect of chord/harmony theory. I can't even remember what it was now, which is pretty bad. He was very patient and uses loads of different examples at the piano but it didn't seem to help really. It was a little clearer than on a bass, but none of the information went in. I dunno, if I play around with a couple of chords on a piano I can see how they relate because some might have the same notes in (CMaj and AMin7 say), but there is something about the nature of theory that I cannot fathom at all. I think I need to work out what that is before I can really get along with it.

Originally Posted by tZer

Distant Cousin, I have a question. Did you study music under the age of 10? Take piano or some other formal, reading music, playing instrument activity?

I had guitar lessons when I was 6 or 7 for about a year. I didn't read anything beyond chord diagrams for that though. I did play recorder a bit in primary school (as every British schoolkid does!), and I read a tiny bit then. That's the only music I had any experience with before the age of 10. (I started learning bass at 13.)

Originally Posted by mambo4

I feel kinda sad that so many seem to get overwhelmed and discouraged by the apparent complexity and poorly communicated forum answers. Theory is not absolutely necessary to play well, but once grasped it can save a lot of trial and error worth the struggle, IMHO.

I agree. I don't know if I'm reading them wrong, but a lot of answers seem to be slightly condescending, as if it's something everyone should be able to grasp immediately. A few friends of mine have tried to help with some things, and have said things like "Nah it's easy! Because..." I know they're trying to help but that just makes it harder for me to understand somehow!

Originally Posted by mambo4

The belief that music theory is rules is misguided and unfortunate. It limits otherwise creative and talented players because they don't want to be "held down by the man"

Music theory is a way to communicate about the patterns underlying melody and harmony, and extreemley useful patterns to know at that.

I agree here as well. Nothing more to say other than that!

Originally Posted by St Drogo

Hell, if you're a synaesthisiac, you might be able to smell music.

Interesting you should say that. I am a synesthesiac. I can hear music as colours but it's more related to tones, so I don't hear any theory related stuff as colours! Which is annoying really, I've often thought that would make it a lot clearer for me to understand. But then I've also thought that maybe because I hear music as colours has something to do with my theory issues.

[pygmygrizzly]

there are so many concepts to music theory, and reading is a different monster form music theory. you have to apply your self if you really want to learn it. I had a roommate when I went to Musician's Institute who was a 56 year old guy, didn't know a thing about theory, didn't know what a 3erd or 5th was, but he could read music better than a book, and it got him tons of gigs in vegas. I know guys that know more theory than is healthy for there style of playing, and they write great songs with out the instrument in hand, because they understand the relation of notes from other songs they've learned. (for those that get it, iii vi ii V I, or iii bV of vi ii bV of V I IV7 #IVdim7 ect...) I know guys that flunked out of school the first week, and then got in a band, and went on tour with ozfest. then there was Jaco, who knew everything about the bass before anyone did, and couldn't get a gig. I think what I'm trying to say is... when a friend of mine met Les Claypool and asked what he should practice Les said "just play" thats it, "just play"

[ba$$]

Everyone has made good comments. There is also plenty of music theory that isn't only regarding reading music/harmonies, but music theory regarding melodic construction, balancing music, form, etc. Obviously, the term "music theory" is fairly arbitrary. To me, it's in the eye of the beholder. It has really helped me in my bass playing and song writing (I am a music major), but raw emotion and feeling trump theory. Usually if it sounds good, it's probably musically "correct".

One of the best books I've read on music is The Music Lesson: A Spiritual Search for Growth Through Music by Victor Wooten. Like Wooten, it has a very emotion-based and spiritual approach to music.

Love this board by the way.

ba$$

P.S. Listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony and you'll hear every type of theory imaginable.