Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Are Theory-Nazis anti-fun?
- Thread starter brewer9
- Start date
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
Why is ignorance such a badge of courage? What's up with the notion that knowing theory makes you grooveless and funless?
I think there is something to that. I am a "rock moron" who knows enough and has a decent enough ear to play a little outside the norm. I don't resent the cats who know theory inside and out, because I could if I wanted to.. I've just been too lazy to put the time in. To quote Led Zeppelin, nobody's fault but mine.
My money's on Pacman, too. He could play with Morbid Angel, but I sure as hell couldn't play with Brad Mehldau.
First of all, let me point out that I didnt call anyone names and certainly didnt put down anyone for knowing how to read.
But I truly believe that just because someone knows how to read music does not in necessarily make them any better than a player who can't read. If you're in a situation that requires reading then it will...granted (thats a good thing), but not every situation requires that. I also think that a player who reads may be able to duplicate sounds and styles he doesnt really enjoy but it'll be phony compared to the guy who cant read music but truly loves playing that style.
Fact: There are crappy musicians who can read and there are excellent musicians who cannot read.
Knowing how to read music is a good thing, but it isnt everything. I think people who read sometimes rely too much on the technical nature of playing and not enough on the emotional elements. And for those who will have a knee jerk reaction against my comments: I do not have the word ALWAYS in there.
Dont overdramatize what I'm saying. This is not an anti-reading thread. There are plenty of players who can and do combine theory with emotion. But it aint everything and you arent better than everyone else.
But I truly believe that just because someone knows how to read music does not in necessarily make them any better than a player who can't read. If you're in a situation that requires reading then it will...granted (thats a good thing), but not every situation requires that. I also think that a player who reads may be able to duplicate sounds and styles he doesnt really enjoy but it'll be phony compared to the guy who cant read music but truly loves playing that style.
Fact: There are crappy musicians who can read and there are excellent musicians who cannot read.
Knowing how to read music is a good thing, but it isnt everything. I think people who read sometimes rely too much on the technical nature of playing and not enough on the emotional elements. And for those who will have a knee jerk reaction against my comments: I do not have the word ALWAYS in there.
Dont overdramatize what I'm saying. This is not an anti-reading thread. There are plenty of players who can and do combine theory with emotion. But it aint everything and you arent better than everyone else.
Now that, I agree with.
But the opposite is true too. In my experience, there have been far more excellent musicians that CAN read, and alot more crappy ones that CAN'T.
Of course, that's just my limited experience. YMMV.
FF
I used to think that, too. But the fact is, you can't truly put "emotional elements" into your playing unless you know something about music. Say you want some sort of tension and release element. Or you want a passage to sound happy. Or sad. How do you convey that? Just pick out a few random notes, or play that same old box pattern and hope you get lucky? Coming to this realization is what made me start listening to music in a different way, and it also made me start studying the relationship between notes and intervals. I'm certainly no theory-meister, but I'm finding more and more that when I want a certain sound or connection between a passage of notes, I can improvise it.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,402
- 9,835
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Yeah, I agree that not learning theory or how to read is often a matter of laziness and that players could be better if they learned more about what they're doing. This is true.
But, sometimes its the other way around. Players who have trouble being creative or at expressing themselves immerse themselves in the process of learning the technicalities as a means of avoiding their own limitations. This is also true.
I know how to express all sorts of emotions and feelings and get a variety of sounds and chords, etc, usually blowing away many more technically able players. I dont guessmy way through it, I know how to do it by experience and practice.
Neighbor's of mine have a son who teaches music at an Ivy league school. He plays the double bass and performs regularly and has released CDs. Well, my parents and everyone else I've spoken with far prefer my band's CDs over his. Although, by your definition that couldnt possibly happen.
But, sometimes its the other way around. Players who have trouble being creative or at expressing themselves immerse themselves in the process of learning the technicalities as a means of avoiding their own limitations. This is also true.
I know how to express all sorts of emotions and feelings and get a variety of sounds and chords, etc, usually blowing away many more technically able players. I dont guessmy way through it, I know how to do it by experience and practice.
Neighbor's of mine have a son who teaches music at an Ivy league school. He plays the double bass and performs regularly and has released CDs. Well, my parents and everyone else I've spoken with far prefer my band's CDs over his. Although, by your definition that couldnt possibly happen.
I think this sums it up nicely.
When brewer said pacman would have trouble doing what he is doing I think he may be right.
This is what I said in my post, there are specific and UNIQUE skills required to play each different style of music. Skills that are beyond theory.
I think people should respect each other for what they play.
Are you saying that those who know theory and read are The Four Seasons and those who dont read are McDonalds?
This again proves the point I made originally. You are assuming that only theory and reading can lead to quality music.
Sorry, thats just plain wrong.
And why is it that the only way you see to "get control" over the instrument is to know the traditional names for what he/she is already playing flawlessly?
Control can be achieved through diligence, practice....and a wide open mind.
This again proves the point I made originally. You are assuming that only theory and reading can lead to quality music.
Sorry, thats just plain wrong.
And why is it that the only way you see to "get control" over the instrument is to know the traditional names for what he/she is already playing flawlessly?
Control can be achieved through diligence, practice....and a wide open mind.
so in fact you are saying that only people who read and who have studied theory are capable of producing quality music.
You have clarified the attitude in a nutshell.
The Beatles didnt read music or study theory. Would you say they were equivilant to McDonalds?
The band Yes, did do all that stuff. Would you also say that they were the Four Seasons?
I think its the exact opposite there buddy.
The Beatles played a very wide and diverse range of music while Yes sounds virtually identical from song to song. I like Yes, but they certainly are no Beatles.
You have clarified the attitude in a nutshell.
The Beatles didnt read music or study theory. Would you say they were equivilant to McDonalds?
The band Yes, did do all that stuff. Would you also say that they were the Four Seasons?
I think its the exact opposite there buddy.
The Beatles played a very wide and diverse range of music while Yes sounds virtually identical from song to song. I like Yes, but they certainly are no Beatles.
Ed, very well said, as usual. However, I almost think it's a waste of breath.
Your first post was very easily understandable as to what you meant with your metaphor. I think, though, that Brewer is TRYING to hear something that was never there, due to his rather strong predisposition to disliking "Jazz Snobs".
Brewer, put plainly, what he's saying is that it's NOT the knowledge of theory (or lack thereof) that makes people like your music better. That deals with their taste in music, not ANYTHING with how much theory the player knows.
If I own a Ferrari and my friend owns a 70's AMC Pacer and everyone prefers my car...does that mean I'm a better driver?
Your first post was very easily understandable as to what you meant with your metaphor. I think, though, that Brewer is TRYING to hear something that was never there, due to his rather strong predisposition to disliking "Jazz Snobs".
Brewer, put plainly, what he's saying is that it's NOT the knowledge of theory (or lack thereof) that makes people like your music better. That deals with their taste in music, not ANYTHING with how much theory the player knows.
If I own a Ferrari and my friend owns a 70's AMC Pacer and everyone prefers my car...does that mean I'm a better driver?
By the way, which period of the Beatles are we talking about...the period which included "Love Me Do" and "She Loves You", or the one that produced "A Day in The Life"? Because if you're talking about the later period, you have to realize that anything that required bringing in outside players (like Eleanor Rigby, etc...) was arranged by George Martin - a classically trained composer/arranger who wrote out the score and parts for the outside musicians to read. Don't get me wrong - I love the Beatles... but none of those guys had a clue about how to take a song that was written for solo guitar and voice and score it for string quartet (or string Octet). George M did all of that, and the same goes for many of their studio innovations...they might have had the BASIC IDEA for a lot of that stuff (John Lennon told George M that he "wanted to be able to smell the sawdust" when Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite was played), but the actual realization of many of those ideas was pulled off by highly skilled and highly TRAINED professionals. And I think that a splendid time was had by all - even by the "Nazis".
The times have changed! Here's a line from the book I'm presently reading(The Electric Explorations of Miles Davis 1967-1991
...the time frame is the '60s; Rock is gaining momentum, Jazz is becoming less & less "popular")-
"Rebellion became the modus operandi of the baby boomer, which changed its style of clothing, grew its hair, & experimented with drugs & Eastern religions. People with short hair & suits were labeled 'straight', 'square', or 'stiff', & since most Jazz musicians wore suits & had short hair, they were dismissed accordingly".
What kills me about this & other comments I sometimes hear HERE...Why is "rebellion" usually associated only with Rock musicians? Why is Rock considered more "emotional;" & Jazz considered more "intellectual"(read: NO FEEL)? Again, these are some of the comments I sense here at TB.
Both Rock & Jazz are about experimentation(or should be...
Sorry for gettin' off-topic.
BTW, Brewer, your Beatles' call is cool with me, though, there was a definite '60s Avant Gard Jazz influence in their stuff(re-visit Revolver & check out "Tomorrow Never Knows"...the tape loops, backwards guitars, sound collages, etc).
Finally, I'll leave you all with this quote from Scott Thunes(Zappa's ex-bassist)-
"If you're a bass player in a Rock band, you are by definition a moron".
(The entire interview is in a Bass Player mag from March '97; funny s***, indeed!).
Wow, this is really interesting. I think though that my point is being obfuscated. These strange food and car examples really dont make any sense here.
A self-trained cook could presumably learn how to be an excellent chef at The Four Seasons, and a self-trained car driver could learn how to drive either a Ferrari or a pacer (I really dont get that one).
But if your point is that I am an idiot who sucks on bass then your way off base (pun intended - see I have humor too despite the fact that I never formally studied humor).
Well, I have to go get ready for vacation. I'm off to Daytona Beach for the week, so I cant respond anymore, but I did enjoy this. Thank you all very much.
A self-trained cook could presumably learn how to be an excellent chef at The Four Seasons, and a self-trained car driver could learn how to drive either a Ferrari or a pacer (I really dont get that one).
But if your point is that I am an idiot who sucks on bass then your way off base (pun intended - see I have humor too despite the fact that I never formally studied humor).
Well, I have to go get ready for vacation. I'm off to Daytona Beach for the week, so I cant respond anymore, but I did enjoy this. Thank you all very much.
People with a different perspective, knowledge base and approach to music make me feel inferior. They are not cool. I do not like people who are not cool. I think I'll beat one of them up after school today.
Can we possibly get more junior high here?
Can we possibly get more junior high here?
First, thank you pacman for being here!
I can't be here much, some personal problem, and Jon take care of the moderation almost alone.
I studied theory at the university, I can read pretty well, and I still suck.
Theory won't make you a better bass player, but quite often it will help. If you want to have inovative bass line and you don't much time to "hear" them, then theory will help you. If you want to play jazz, you need theory (although I know some people who play jazz with no theory, don't ask me how they do it I have no idea).
If you want to play in a rock cover band, no theory is needed, but I like theory, it's one part of the music I really like.
I need it, it's important for me. But I agree that not everybody need it.
I can't be here much, some personal problem, and Jon take care of the moderation almost alone.
I studied theory at the university, I can read pretty well, and I still suck.
Theory won't make you a better bass player, but quite often it will help. If you want to have inovative bass line and you don't much time to "hear" them, then theory will help you. If you want to play jazz, you need theory (although I know some people who play jazz with no theory, don't ask me how they do it I have no idea).
If you want to play in a rock cover band, no theory is needed, but I like theory, it's one part of the music I really like.
I need it, it's important for me. But I agree that not everybody need it.
I think you'd better go back and listen to all the Yes albums (which they're still making by the way). I'm a huge fan of both Yes and The Beatles and I have to say that Yes easily has as much range of colour and emotion as The Beatles. You've obviously not listen to Yes with a very open mind if you think it all sounds the same. Yes has a huge musical vocabulary to draw from so I find their music incredibly varied.
A lot of people say Classical music all sounds the same too. That's as ridiculous as saying Yes' music sounds all the same.
Go back and listen to the first 4 or 5 Beatles albums and then compare them to the first 4 or 5 Yes albums. I can tell you without question which band had a bigger range of style, colour and texture. Yes.
