'What's theory for?' people- read

[colcifer]

This question irks me. Here is the answer: http://colcifer.com/?p=98

TLDR version: Theory is for explaining music, not producing it.

[fdeck]

A composer can choose to adopt a theoretical system in order to explore its possibilities and limitations. Bach did this with the fugue. A composer could invent a theory from scratch and use it as a framework for composition and improvisation. Examples include modal jazz and 12-tone music. This can be a way to break free from established conventions without completely abandoning all structure and form. Another use of theory is to communicate a composer's intentions while giving the player improvisational freedom. An example is the chord changes written into jazz tunes.

These are all uses of theory in the production of music.

[fourstringburn]

Sounds like more self righteous justification for not learning all aspects of music. The more you learn,the more you can draw from when expressing yourself musically as you play your instrument.

We had to learn to read and write along with all the other grammar skills associated with our language. Otherwise we couldn't communicate on forums like these or e mail and text and all the other forms of communication that requires reading, writing,and grammar skills. Otherwise we would be illiterate, right?

So if you can't read a note of music or have any basic theory behind you, then that would make you "Musically" illiterate, but yes, one can still be a great player and songwriter!

Sure there are many great players who say they have know music theory knowledge, but they have learned some over the years so it is "bull" when someone says they haven't! These guys (and yourself I hope!) are aware of what key they are in and do have an idea of what notes are on the fretboard. Have you ever heard a band-mate say "play the song on this fret and this one here dude,then follow the fretboard dots".

Because basses usually have frets and dot markers, this makes is easy to see and learn patterns that are similar in nearly every key. So once you learn a scale pattern, it is easy to transpose it to another key. This is one reason players don't take lessons because it is easy to figure a lot out on your own.The design of the bass allows this. To my knowledge, other instruments of pitch don't have a one pattern fits all keys approach.

So really what we have here with non-musically educated players are trained monkeys playing random notes that when played in the right combination, make up a cool lick or bitchin tune. After-wards, they might hit the big time and tour the world just like many Rock n rollers that we all like are doing. Great!

One thing to consider, Many instruments may be somewhat easy to learn to play, but are often difficult to master.

[M0ses]

One of my colleagues once said to me, "You know, there's no such dynamic marking as fff. Composers just started making it up when they wanted to get louder than ff."

I just stared at him stupidly because I couldn't express how horrifically stupid that is.

That's my bone with theory. When things like that happen. Learning theory is good, though. I know lots of theory. It helps, it can make things easier, it certainly makes communicating ideas much easier. But once you let it get in the way of the music, then you're no longer a musician.

[Billnc]

Theory is simply learning the building blocks and tools of music. How music works. I'm fine with a person being a folk artist and all, don't learn much and wing it with heart. But seriously is a visual artist forum going to have as many people as we have here dissing those that learn perspective and shading for their art?
General bashing about no more makes one a musician than a person who likes to doodle on paper an artist, no matter how hard they try to justify their ignorance.
By the way the blog isn't so bad, I just think theory is learning what to do, and this covers dynamics and rythm, in opposition to Victors definition.

[colcifer]

For a bit of background information, my training is as a jazz musician and so I know quite a bit of theory and am primarily an improviser (which should explain a bit).

As a composer, I agree, theory can be helpful. My intention for this article (as evidenced by my closing comments), however, was to give a simple answer to satisfy the intended audience, people who genuinely need an explanation of this topic. If we were to compile a list of the many different ways a good working knowledge of music theory can be utilized, it would be quite long and quite dull, and would not convey the primary purpose of this form of academic musical education.

Please, if there is something about my position you would like me to elaborate on, just ask. My reason for starting a blog was a dissatisfaction with how music resources have a tendency not to explain things thoroughly (though, I'll admit, I defaulted in favor of brevity in this article).

[colcifer]

Thanks for the feedback, by the way. I've added an update in response that I hope satisfies any confusion or dissatisfaction.

UPDATE: Response over on the catalytic bass forum has led me to realize that I mistakenly assumed two distinctions that are critical to understanding my thesis. One is what constitutes theory, which for the purposes of this article is aforementioned "conscious theory". The other is the difference between what it takes to be able to explain something and to be able to do something. For example, if a student were to ask me to explain something, I would use "conscious theory". However, if I were asked to play something, just "subconscious theory" would be sufficient. This is more nebulous then I like to leave things, but sometimes music must be left that way.

[M0ses]

On the other hand, I didn't read anything in your article that said "theory is bad" and so I don't understand what we're all worked up about.