Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by Rick Robins

Thank you for your second long reply Fergie Fulton. I will need to take some time to read them a few times over before I could reply further than the few comments I will make now.

First I do not think I am confused in regard to the Academic approach and the Vocational approach. To be honest with you I myself debated the use of these words with Jeff once due to his use of Academic in comparative thinking of one thing to another. I teach vocational skills daily, in order to properly use the skills I teach the student still must have some higher academic training, generally related to math & science. If you view the interests part of my profile the skills I teach will become clearer to you.

I hope this alone explains why my question(s) & why I find Jeff nothing but right.

I fully understand where you are coming from, but one of the basic fundamental differences we deal with in music is objectivity. But you seem to know the answer to the question " why is this so hard to grasp" and I would imagine you even know the answer to why many shun it...but you still ask.
In as much whatever is created in music can be explained by others, the creator does not have to or even attempt to justify how or why he done it other than say "sounds good to me". This is why Jeff says the art and the Academic need to be separated so all we get is the facts. The same can be said about performance and groove, they need to be separated from the facts so we can learn to entertain and connect with the feelings and emotions of the music.

Let's not get confused with meanings, modern use of the terms Academic and Vocational, in the UK are you go to University or Collage to be Academic, you do not in being Vocational. In that sense certain subjects can only be studied in this way, there has to be clear understanding of the consequences of getting it wrong in the practical application.
In music that is not an issue, because the practical application is subjective, what I find terrible other find good for example. But a bad doctor, engineer, pilot, chemist, physicist etc can have deadly consequences.....no objectivity about their practical outcomes.
What Jeff says is true to an extent, but it is the way he went about trying to get his points across. Like our old teachers, if they were about teaching today they would find themselves up on assault or child cruelty charges with some of the things they done to us in the classroom, Jeff tried the same approach. But in our days we could not walk away and find another source, and of we did we were dragged back screaming and kicking and made to learn. It's changed days we have to embrace them in order to guide other through them that don't yet understand the consequences of the decisions they make now will affect there future lives.

As for the Publishers...well let's just say you may miss that one because you are in the US A where the center of your sky color may be blue, but here in the UK the centre of my sky colour is blue.....till a windows spell checker decides it should be as it is in the USA and I have to change it back.....LoL.....if the masses accept it then it will become the correct way.

[Clef_de_fa]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

As we have seen here on TB and as is the case where ever he goes his message gets lost in the politics of " being Jeff Berlin", the negative of what he says gets more attention than the positive. That negative is probley maybe 1% of what he has to say, yet that 1% applies to practically all players of all levels in what is considered the Music Business
So to new or younger players the thinking is " if he is wrong about that then he can be wrong about other things he says" rather than thinking "well if one of the greatest bass players ever to have lived and a walking talking legend can show me better ways to play....I will listen." But to most people outside the bass world or new to it they have never heard of him, or if they have it's the negative things he says. I mean Jeff say bad metronome, but Vic Wooten and others say good metronome and show how to use the metronome to good effect, so who will the believe?

Jeff Berlin comes from Classical Music like me, the idea with the metronome isn't that it is very bad. Classical music teacher focus on the right note then, once you know all the right note on the music sheet in front of you, learn the rythm and then merge them together. Not learn, note, intonation and rythm altogether like many people do ... especially if you are learning with your ear.

I think the reject of learning theory come from the fact that electric guitar, bass and drum are musical instrument that build Rock'n'Roll ... a music that goes hand in hand with the reject of the authority. Classical music and theory is the authority and thus it is rejected.

I went to college to learn music, I played classical and jazz DB as my principal instruments. But in an academic studies like that, performance isn't that important. It is more important that you learn some theory and you apply it. You prefer to wear makeup, dance etc etc etc well you aren't at the right place.

[Russell L]

Good grief, it's always the same when folks get to discussing learning theory or not. First of all, no one here is saying you have to get a PhD in it. For instance, last night a guy was playing a guitar chord that is a basic three-note major chord, except it also has a 4th (the note used in a suspended chord) that rings along right beside the 3rd of the chord (am I using too much theory jargon here?). Great sounding effect. But, there was no way I could explain it to him without sitting back and having a LONG discussion to explain what it all meant. But, all he would've had to understand was the very fundamentals of how chords are built. Anyone can learn that in thirty minutes of study and playing, if taught by someone who knows how to relate it. The guy didn't need to also be able to write jazz charts and understand all kinds of advanced theory stuff. No, just the very basics. Kinda like knowing the very basics about your autombile, enough to be able to know when to get the oil changed or put air in the tires. Just practical stuff.

Do you know how to tune your bass? Heck, that's some basic theory right there. If someone tells you the key a song is in, do you automatically know what the I, IV, and V chords will be? Those guys last night knew, even though they don't know much else. They kept saying the key a song was in, and knew what three chords to play in each key. Now, granted, they couldn't define what a key is, other than to say they know some chords that seem to work. That's ok, but, they don't have a clue what they're missing by not understanding just a little bit more. The thing is, it's all a part of music theory. Why in the world would anyone want to overlook these basic things? It's VERY rewarding to understand something of what's going on.

I know, I know, different strokes. And I'm not putting anyone down for not wanting to learn any of it. I'm just pointing out that there is a wonderful world of knowledge out there that anyone will be glad they learned something of, if they ever do. I'm sure that anyone who has learned a little bit can testify to that.

[jgroh]

Ill be honest, I took lessons from a great teacher for the first 3 years of playing and he stressed music theory and I learned alot of the basics. However, in my own situation, I got to a point where theory was kind of handcuffing me a bit as I was over thinking everything. I had to quit lessons and just play...with bands or figuring out songs from CDs by ear and thats when my playing took off. This is 25 years ago so there was no internet tabs or anything like that.

Now however, I am contemplating going back to lessons because I want to understand how it all works. I can play pretty well, I just want to do the theory. But I can say that me quitting lessons and getting out there was the best thing I could have done.

[Russell L]

Originally Posted by jgroh

Ill be honest, I took lessons from a great teacher for the first 3 years of playing and he stressed music theory and I learned alot of the basics. However, in my own situation, I got to a point where theory was kind of handcuffing me a bit as I was over thinking everything. I had to quit lessons and just play...with bands or figuring out songs from CDs by ear and thats when my playing took off. This is 25 years ago so there was no internet tabs or anything like that.

Now however, I am contemplating going back to lessons because I want to understand how it all works. I can play pretty well, I just want to do the theory. But I can say that me quitting lessons and getting out there was the best thing I could have done.

But the fault was not theory. It was your overthinking. I get what you're trying to say, though. Sometimes it just feels good to not analyze something.

Folks, I have a degree in music theory, but that's not to say that I am constantly thinking about it all as I play. That is, if I'm going from a C chord to and F# chord, I'm not analyizing it and saying to myself, "The harmonic movement is a tritone interval which is right in the middle of the octave, and so I will have to use accidentals outside the key of C"...blah, blah, blah,... No, I just play the thing and move onward. Although, it's nice in the back of my mind to know these things. Now, if I were writing a song, and I needed to say something different, something original, theory would help immensely because I COULD analyze things. I could analyze other songs and try to NOT do what they do, thereby finding something original to do. Or, I could analyze a certain genre of music and understand wht kinds of thigs to do in order to make my part fit in. (e.g.--if I want to fit in with 18th century classical I would know not to play parallel 4ths and 5ths).

[Rick Robins]

Fergie, Thanks again for your reply & once again I will reply after further reading & digesting.

Ian: Best of luck to you in NYC, I checked out your web page & info, I find it all impressive.

I have a few observations I would like to share at a later time & I have a few more questions, especially concerning "Groove".

While asking my questions here for my own benefit I also forwarded some of the responses to Jeff for comparison, once again for my own benefit. I feel it only fair that I share what he kindly returned, no names, publicly on his facebook.

Here is his reply in full:

Not everybody wishes to take lessons which is fine for some people. But, it is a sad idea to draw a line so strictly in the sand regarding their musical improvement. People that teach themselves only have themselves to answer to regarding their musical improvement and in truth, this is a bad thing, to rely on yourself when you don't know what you might be doing. Example: Many people use the word "theory" to define academic studies, which shows me that many players don't understand how music works.This word is used wrongly. Theory doesn't define improving on one's instrument. It defines that portion of academic studies that applies to factual elements of music away from an instrument.



"There is a Law of Logical Argument that says that “anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about! Most self taught musicians don’t know what they are talking about in musical ways, but think that they do. And to put a point on their beliefs, they often stand for a low standard of music, often justifying this by saying that they don’t wish to be master musicians or even professional. But they do accept studying groove classes (for example) as a valid acadmeic pursuit. But groove classes don’t work as an academic principle because groove is a reward, not a method. Everybody in the pro ranks can groove and not one of them paid anyone to learn this skill. Nobody needs to pay for performance education of any kind. Music education, should one choose to go this way, is best learned ONLY AS AN ACADEMIC PURSUIT. In the notes and harmony and rhythms that you study, the reward to us all is a groove, knowledge of instrument, ability in music and all the rewards that come from this.



Finally, people often state that music should be learned or taught as a language But they forget that a language has rules. A child learning how to speak doesn't take lessons to speak and therefore has no place in any discussion about music education. And if one learns music as a child does, that is, listening and imitating what they hear, then why do they need to spend money on music lessons to learn this point. Music is a fact, and the art part comes after the fact. No one needs to study music to learn about the heart of music, the passion, the feel, the groove. If you bought a guitar, believe me, you are probably passionate and already have a lot of heart as a player. You just might not know how to play, which can be a huge downer when one feels all that love for their artform but doesn't exacly know what notes to play. Every player that cannot play what they hear in their heads have no problem with groove, feel, heart or emotion. They just haven't learned how to PLAY! Of course you aren't going to groove if you don't know where the right notes are. This is why using a child as an example of learning frome childhood doesn't make sense. That kid always ends up in high school after years of studying in English class anyway. He is learning the language academically, factually, with heart, without art. THEN he might be a writer, a newsperson, an actor, a poet. After learning the facts, he can get in touch with his art, But not before. Here is a quote to ponder from Steven Spielberg! "Even before you think of yourself as an artist, first you must learn your craft!"

[Russell L]

"...learn your craft." Bravo!

A painter may have all the emotion, but he will never be able to paint purple until he first learns to mix red and blue.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by AlmightyPancake

I honestly feel that much of it has to do with the connotations of "theory."

Many people feel as though "theory" is a set of rules that must be followed, or else you're playing "wrong." It's pretty easy to understand why this misperception exists; just consider the number of teachers who bust your balls when you play something incorrectly, or muss up a scale or chord change. This implies that by learning theory, you're restricting yourself to having to play within very strict confines of "correct" and "incorrect". It doesn't help that there are many musicians who feel strongly that there are definite "rights" and "wrongs" in music.

I didn't embrace theory effectively until I had a fantastic teacher who did a wonderful job of emphasizing that he was giving me a toolkit, not laying down some laws. I also think that there is a period when learning theory (early on) where it does actually hinder your ability to approach your instrument creatively. It's tough to write something when your brain is running a mile a minute, telling you what the "accepted" notes to play at a given time are. Once you grasp theory for what it is, though, it's nothing but useful for any level of musician.

Bingo.

Musical theory isn't a theory in the scientific sense - it's not attempting to understand a physical reality.

Music theory is more akin to a grammar than it is to a theory in science.

Grammar: A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes.


Music theory is a set of rules created by humans to describe/analyze past musical compositions, it is not a description of an underlying physical reality.

[onosson]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Bingo.

Musical theory isn't a theory in the scientific sense - it's not attempting to understand a physical reality.

Music theory is more akin to a grammar than it is to a theory in science.

Grammar: A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes.

Music theory is a set of rules created by humans to describe/analyze past musical compositions, it is not a description of an underlying physical reality.

As a linguist, who studies grammar from a descriptive and theoretical point if view, I have to take some exception to your analogy! Language as grammar can be prescriptive and pedagogical, but there is an underlying framework that exists independently of overt teaching, which can be (and is!) studied in great detail. Linguistic theories (in the scientific sense) of grammar are developed from this research.

Of course, that's all beside the point - but is music any different than language when it comes to theory?

[Fergie Fulton]

The link explains it best for me Rick.

The Case for Music Theory by Katie aged 8 years old.

[RustyAxe]

Originally Posted by JimiLL

its true. im starting to notice a little bit of a trend that knowing theory is somewhat looked down upon and Ive also been told by some people that they dont need to know theory, they play "with their feelings"

Yeah, I've heard those guys. And I have a theory about them, too.

[Beach Bum Scott]

This is from a basement hack that never intends on playing in a band.

Way back in the mid 70's I was in school band playing trombone and learned all the theory related to it, but seeing as you don't play chords on a trombone I never learned that part.

Well fast forward to 5 years ago and I picked up a Ukulele and wanted to learn.
I found a local "Folk" music school that had group classes so I signed up thinking man I am going to have to relearn alot of stuff.

The fisrt class the instructor asks "do you want to learn theory or to play some songs"?

Over the past few years I have picked up some multi note theory while taking guitar classes like the 1,4,5 chord thing. But it wasn't till I got a bass a couple weeks ago that stuff like root notes, 3, 5, 7 and how it related to scales clicked.

With all this said I still wouldn't be applying much theory to my Ukulele playing... why? cuz I like to strum old school Hapa Haole songs... not write them!

[LayDownABoogie]

It's settled then... Want to be a basement hack that never plays in a band ? - don't learn theory.

[uethanian]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Bingo.

Musical theory isn't a theory in the scientific sense - it's not attempting to understand a physical reality.

Music theory is more akin to a grammar than it is to a theory in science.

yup. music theory and 'common practice' is a way to pin down a small set of harmonic and rhythmic relationships from an infinite spectrum of relationships.

as to the physical reality of music...well it's surprising to me at least how so many self-identified musicians have zero interest or curiosity as to how music actually works, and how that translates into music theory.

[brianrost]

Originally Posted by HeadyVan Halen

Mr. Berlin kills me the way he wants to lock you in

People take a lot of what Jeff says out of context.

I went to a clinic of his once where he said that since most rock/funk/blues players did not have formal music education that it's perfectly OK to learn those styles the way those guys did...by playing along with records.

Jeff said go find any list of the "100 greatest albums of all time", buy those albums, learn every song by ear and you're good to go.

On the other hand if you want to be a professional player able to handle any gig then he said you should study formally.

I do not understand what is controversial about any of that.

Originally Posted by Marial

Do I wish I knew theory? Sure! I've been gigging steadily and mostly happily for twenty + years

If you've been playing for over 20 years you probably know a lot more theory than you think. Do you know how to play a chord by name? Do you know what notes are in a given key? That's "theory".

[Calaverasgrande]

I grew up playing music. So I never really had a choice about knowing or not knowing theory. There was a piano in the house and both parents could read music. So it was handed down to me.
When I got older and learned more about music I became somewhat of an atonalist. I posited that musical pitches and intervals are arbitrary.
Then I picked up the trumpet. I found out that th harmonic series is not just on strings. On the horn you can play your major scale (mostly) just by hitting the overtones spot on. It isnt a construct after all. It's the observed physical behavior of harmonic resonances.
So I changed my mind...

[onosson]

Originally Posted by Calaverasgrande

I posited that musical pitches and intervals are arbitrary.
Then I picked up the trumpet. I found out that th harmonic series is not just on strings. On the horn you can play your major scale (mostly) just by hitting the overtones spot on. It isnt a construct after all. It's the observed physical behavior of harmonic resonances.
So I changed my mind...

Bingo!

Here's another connection to language, on the acoustic dimension. What allows us to hear the different types of vowel sounds is the way air resonates in the mouth depending on the shape of the tongue (simplified explanation). what's interesting is that there are some really common vowels when you look at languages all over the world, and others that aren't common at all. What stands out about the common vowels is their harmonics (called formants in linguistics) - they are very stable for the most common vowels, and are as distinct from each other as possible. Not arbitrary at all, either.

Acoustics is the study of the physical properties of sound waves. We've been doing acoustics with our brains since we began to speak, at least, and recognizing and using the patterns we've found.

[Rick Robins]

Witnessing Jeff live IMO should make any bassist who desires to be the best they can think “ I got to know, what this guy knows, where he got it from & how does he do with it what he does, along with how could I use it for my thing.” The content of his recorded material weather one likes the material (the art) or not should do the same.

Here are some other things I have considered before buying into Jeff's philosophy:
The fact that many of his considered elite peers, the Geddy Lees, Billy Sheehans & Jacos of the industry, have publicly stated in one form or another that his electric bass playing &/or musical knowledge is superior in comparison to just about any & all electric bass players before & after him.
If one reads his bio/history and about his teachers it should become clear not many have the back ground he does.

Jeff interviews:
Jeff Berlin interview

Jeff Berlin: Still the Ace of Bass

Bassist Jeff Berlin Pays Tribute to Charlie Banacos

The teacher Jeff speaks most of, who to me it sounds like was just as Jeff is in regard to teaching & what to teach vs. what not.
Charlie Banacos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CharlieBanacos.com

If one removes all the diligent comparison analogies, examples & thought motivators from Jeff's commentary they are left with this in the end:

Simply put all the man is asking is “Why pay, Why part with your money & spend your time to be taught something you could & will develop on your own while not getting what you should be paying for? A lesson in musical content!! The bricks & mortar one will use to create their musical art or reinterpret others.” Between the lines one will also find no need for college & the other non musical subjects if one is able to find a private instructor like Jeff or Charlie, and he's cool with that as long as you are getting "The Good Stuff".

[robertusf]

So, where does one start, after playing years and years by ear? I have gotten by pretty well playing by ear. But, I do know, all too well, how much I am limited by lack of theory. Two of my bandmates go into "music speak" and sometimes i get lost in the terminology.

Again, where does an intermediate ear player begin? Suggestions?

****EDIT***** I know my major/minor scales but start to lose it in chord structure,etc

[Russell L]

Originally Posted by robertusf

So, where does one start, after playing years and years by ear? I have gotten by pretty well playing by ear. But, I do know, all too well, how much I am limited by lack of theory. Two of my bandmates go into "music speak" and sometimes i get lost in the terminology.

Again, where does an intermediate ear player begin? Suggestions?

Someone here can post sites about theory. Start by understanding intervals. Then, understand what a major scale is. Then, stacking 3rds to make chords. Then, progressions.

It's best understood on the keyboard in the key of C. That's because you can see it all in action that way, especially since the C major scale is just white notes.