College Classes?

[mambo4]

In general, theory is aimed at classical music, since that is the genre that uses it the most intensely.

My first reaction is to disagree and point to jazz harmony as the place where theory is used "most intensely"

But I think that the reality may be that some genres uses certain areas of music theory more intensely than others.

I see music theory through the lens of an 80/20 rule : 80% of the usefulness lies in 20% of the theory actually taught.
In my theory 101 class I found that that useful 20% was very thinly spread in a frustrating 80% layer of mostly useless info
At least in my amateur pop/rock/funk/jazz/latin/tiki experience.
If I were in a baroque ensemble, where more of the stuff actually applied to my real life music, I might feel different.

 

[Spin Doctor]

To me that means he was not a good student. Maybe he was a savant, but had not actually done the studying.

Theory is a tool - nothing else. Ask anyone if James Jamerson, Ron Carter, Anthony Jackson or Carol Kaye had any "concept of what to do when there are no notes to read".

Every person you mentioned was a jazz musician, not a classical one. In jazz you must be extremely adept in applying theory and harmony on the highest level. That's what jazz is all about.

In classical, if you can read notes, you can do the job. You don't need to know any theory at all, because in the main everything is written right there for you to regurgitate. Little if anything is written for jazz outside of a lead sheet. Nobody "reads" a jazz solo...

 

[Spin Doctor]

My first reaction is to disagree and point to jazz harmony as the place where theory is used "most intensely"

Exactly...

 

[MonetBass]

Unless you were going to pursue a music degree, I'd suggest you learn theory on your own. There are lots of books on the subject. In fact, you could even purchase a college-level music theory text if you wanted. Here's another resource:
www.musictheory.net

 

[Spin Doctor]

This guy may have played classical guitar but i'm not sure I'd say he was classically trained. Nearly all of the classically trained musciians I've known, on many different instruments, were very well versed in theory. Maybe they don't improvise well, because they might not have to on a regular basis, but they certainly understand what is going on musically.

Yeah, I'm sure he wasn't classically trained since he's an engineer. But I wasn't relating his playing classical guitar to being classically trained. I was relating classical training to a general inability to jam/vibe and solo without having music in front of them.

I know a few classical musicians and they are extremely heavy in theory, but they couldn't swing if you hung them from a chandelier... I guess it comes down to what you think is important.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Every person you mentioned was a jazz musician, not a classical one. In jazz you must be extremely adept in applying theory and harmony on the highest level. That's what jazz is all about.

In classical, if you can read notes, you can do the job. You don't need to know any theory at all, because in the main everything is written right there for you to regurgitate. Little if anything is written for jazz outside of a lead sheet. Nobody "reads" a jazz solo...

Because I was speaking to a bunch of bassists. Not many bass guitarists in orchestras. Every classical composer knows theory.

Any musician who is just reading notes does not need a huge amount of theory - classical players do not improvise in an orchestra. They are reading notes and following the composer.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Because I was speaking to a bunch of bassists. Not many bass guitarists in orchestras. Every classical composer knows theory.

Any musician who is just reading notes does not need a huge amount of theory - classical players do not improvise in an orchestra. They are reading notes and following the composer.

Ok, I gotta admit that I'm not sure I get your point.

The original discussion was centered around your comment, which was "In general, theory is aimed at classical music, since that is the genre that uses it the most intensely."

The counter argument was that jazz uses theory more intently since jazz musicians do not have the benefit of having every note written down and must create music based ONLY on their ability to internalize complex theory on a high level then, spontaneously create, without sheet music.

I already know most classical musicians know theory. Knowing or knowing of something is completely different that having to apply something every single time you touch your instrument. Classical musicians in the pit don't have to be even slightly aware of any theory to play a song that's set in front of them.

 

[buldog5151bass]

All I can tell you is I took four semesters of music theory (enough to major in music if I wanted), and there was exactly zero mention of jazz. If you want to understand music on a deeper level), be it jazz, classical, or popular, you need theory.

Modern music is different - the musicians compose and arrange it. In classical music, there generally is a line drawn between performers and composers. It's apples and oranges.

 

[SteveCS]

... I guess this is why classically trained people seem to have trouble with just going with the flow/vibe of a song. I guess they have no concept of what to do when there are no notes to read.

I don't fully agree with this, although on the surface it might seem true. I think the reason is that there is little opportunity to practice or develop improvisational skills in most classical settings. But if you listen to a baroque Continuo player, using just figured bass to essentially jam around changes on the harpsichord you will understand why I think your comment is far too generic.