Do away with dogmatism

[Jim Nazium]

If I understand Chris K's original point, it is that:

(a) some people are very concerned about applying (western European) music theory to their playing, to the point of saying that it's wrong to play a certain note over a certain chord, and
(b) some people think that any type of theoretical analysis limits or constrains their playing, so they recommend not learning any theory at all.

I think Chris' point was that both of these positions are limiting, and we'll be better players if we open our minds both to understanding theory and being free to play 'outside' of it.

Music theory is just a set of names for sounds, and it makes it much easier to talk about the sounds if we have names for them. Imagine trying to talk to your bandmates if no one knew the names of any scales, chords, or intervals. But knowing those names doesn't mean we have to be bound by any rules. You have a piece of wood with four strings on it (or five, or six ...). You can do anything you want with it. If it sounds good, it is good.

Peace to all.

 

[Chris K]

If I understand Chris K's original point, it is that:

(a) some people are very concerned about applying (western European) music theory to their playing, to the point of saying that it's wrong to play a certain note over a certain chord, and
(b) some people think that any type of theoretical analysis limits or constrains their playing, so they recommend not learning any theory at all.

I think Chris' point was that both of these positions are limiting, and we'll be better players if we open our minds both to understanding theory and being free to play 'outside' of it.

Music theory is just a set of names for sounds, and it makes it much easier to talk about the sounds if we have names for them. Imagine trying to talk to your bandmates if no one knew the names of any scales, chords, or intervals. But knowing those names doesn't mean we have to be bound by any rules. You have a piece of wood with four strings on it (or five, or six ...). You can do anything you want with it. If it sounds good, it is good.

Peace to all.

Peace and long life to you Jim!
And thanks a lot for trying to help me out. You are right on the dot. To no avail, however. But we'll just look for the silver lining, either by chords sheet or by ear.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

I was taught to learn the rules so that I could then learn to break them on purpose (knowing that I had broke them) rather than break the rules on accident.

 

[Chris K]

Me too - by people who did not really appreciate to see me try just that - it's a well known dogmatic strategy .

Going my own way every now and then I discovered quite a lot by accident. Unfortunately, most of it was about what NOT to play. Which is also pretty important, though.

And it's music we're talking about, not brain surgery. So...

 

[DesertCreature]

If I understand Chris K's original point, it is that:

(a) some people are very concerned about applying (western European) music theory to their playing, to the point of saying that it's wrong to play a certain note over a certain chord, and
(b) some people think that any type of theoretical analysis limits or constrains their playing, so they recommend not learning any theory at all.

I think Chris' point was that both of these positions are limiting, and we'll be better players if we open our minds both to understanding theory and being free to play 'outside' of it.

Music theory is just a set of names for sounds, and it makes it much easier to talk about the sounds if we have names for them. Imagine trying to talk to your bandmates if no one knew the names of any scales, chords, or intervals. But knowing those names doesn't mean we have to be bound by any rules. You have a piece of wood with four strings on it (or five, or six ...). You can do anything you want with it. If it sounds good, it is good.

Peace to all.

Nice post. We don't have to be pedantic about music theory. I use it as a tool to facilitate learning and communication. It makes playing easier, not harder.

Plus I never have to bother with tabs.

I find that even intuitive musicians already know more theory than they think they do.

 

[mambo4]

We should study theory...But we should also do away with dogmatism.

agreed, you gotta know the rules to break em. But I will say this:
Newbies regularly post questions like "what does all that I-ii-V-I" stuff mean?" or "how do I use modes?" etc... In those case, "do away with dogma" is a useless and uninformative response. If someone doesn't know theory, then discouraging them is certainly not helpful.

OTOH, I have never seen a post where somebody who knew their theory went on to advocate strict adherence to "the rules." it seems to me that almost every player who has learned music theory also knows its not RULES TO OBEY

 

[derekd]

agreed, you gotta know the rules to break em. But I will say this:
Newbies regularly post questions like "what does all that I-ii-V-I" stuff mean?" or "how do I use modes?" etc... In those case, "do away with dogma" is a useless and uninformative response. If someone doesn't know theory, then discouraging them is certainly not helpful.

OTOH, I have never seen a post where somebody who knew their theory went on to advocate strict adherence to "the rules." it seems to me that almost every player who has learned music theory also knows its not RULES TO OBEY

Part of this is a generational thing as someone suggested when they described an elder statesman lifting lines by listening to records only. Now that jazz has gone to the university, academics (I have an M.Ed.) are compelled by their DNA to crystallize a subject so that it can then be taught properly to the unwashed masses.

Chord A fitting with scale B is just the sort of structured formula that gets our heart beat up. However, it certainly has the ability to weed out creativity. If I am limited only to Dorian, Mixolydian, Ionian over a ii V I, then better take a 5 hour energy shot to stay awake during the set.

Same as all the stories of XXXXX great player who couldn't grab his ass with both hands theory wise. Where do stories like that get us? Those people seem to be outliers on the bell curve.

So the rub is, how do we allow theory to serve us, and not have us serving theory? I am currently rereading Kenny Werner's Effortless Mastery. Maybe Kenny has the answer in an appendix somewhere. Good discussion fellas.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Part of this is a generational thing as someone suggested when they described an elder statesman lifting lines by listening to records only. Now that jazz has gone to the university, academics (I have an M.Ed.) are compelled by their DNA to crystallize a subject so that it can then be taught properly to the unwashed masses.... So the rub is, how do we allow theory to serve us, and not have us serving theory?

Well, that's part of the problem, that most folks tend to voice/perceive that the ONLY TWO OPTIONS are the ones that you outline. I've gone down the self taught path and hit that dead end, and I've been down the academic path and hit that dead end. I'm currently studying privately and that seems to be opening vistas, not closing them down. This has been thrown out before and here it goes again, my teacher's article....

 

[derekd]

Well, that's part of the problem, that most folks tend to voice/perceive that the ONLY TWO OPTIONS are the ones that you outline. I've gone down the self taught path and hit that dead end, and I've been down the academic path and hit that dead end. I'm currently studying privately and that seems to be opening vistas, not closing them down. This has been thrown out before and here it goes again, my teacher's article....

Yes, well there clearly is more than one path up the mountain. Myself, I like to read about and understand as much as I can about a topic I am interested in. Therefore my theory knowledge outpaces my ability at this point.

Thanks for the article. I couldn't read it, so I printed it off. Will wait till I get home to my reading glasses. Looks promising.

 

[Chris K]

Great article, and I'm glad you threw it out once more. Thanks.

To me, the most striking phrase was:
But in the end, what you know is not as important as how and
to what level you have absorbed it.

Hear, hear.

 

[uethanian]

A major third of a root note is totally quantitative. Pitches are measured values. What I think you're questioning is the convention of calling that exact interval a "major third". Sure, if the major scale had historically been divided into twice as many intervals, the major third might have been called a "major 6th" or something like that, but the convention would still be there, just different.

quantitative but only within context (not sure if i mean to agree or disagree with you, perhaps both). the words 'major third' do not imply a specific interval. nor do 'C to E,' because note names are ambiguous and arbitrary. you could be talking about an equal tempered third, an irregularly tempered third, a 5/4, a 9/7, or a 81/64. the only unambiguous way to describe an interval is through it's numerical identity (which is non-debatable).

Chris K is very right in that "all musical theory resulted from practical experience." take the rules of western music theory outside of western music and they don't mean anything. not in other music, and certainly not in harmonic theory. so our 'music theory' exists to make sense of an unusually irrational system.

 

[Chris K]

take the rules of western music theory outside of western music and they don't mean anything. not in other music, and certainly not in harmonic theory. so our 'music theory' exists to make sense of an unusually irrational system.

Now why didn't I think of saying just that. Do we already have a club for Non-Western Bassists? Let's establish one ASAP.

 

[uethanian]

Now why didn't I think of saying just that. Do we already have a club for Non-Western Bassists? Let's establish one ASAP.

i'm in if you promise to join

 

[Chris K]

i'm in if you promise to join

We'll have to restrict access to fretless players - to be able to play quarter tones.

And to keep country bassists away, for they are definitely much too western.

It will get complicated, I'm afraid.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

If I understand you correctly, you are making the point (by way of analogy) in a discussion of grammar and the English language, that Chinese doesn't use the same rules.
I hesitate to point out (again by way of analogy) that Chinese ISN'T English.

 

[BargeOn]

"if it sounds good, it is good"

It's too bad the lessons of people like Russell and Wittgenstein are lost in the stratusphere. This statement is as meaningless as Jabberwalkie.

So, if it sounds bad it is bad?
If it tastes good it is good? The best poison might taste very good.

There is no argument because there is no point. But that never stopped an argument in any case.

 

[Jim Nazium]

So, if it sounds bad it is bad?
If it tastes good it is good? The best poison might taste very good.

When was the last time someone got sick or died from listening to "bad" music?

Yes, if it sounds bad, it is bad. That statement is not meaningless, and there is a point. The point is that music can only be judged by how it sounds, not by whether the notes fit some theoretical rule. If you like the sound of a flat nine over a minor 7th chord, then play it. If you don't like that sound, then don't play it.

Oh, 'golf clap' for dropping some philosophers' names. That's impressive.

 

[SpawnofHastur]

If I understand you correctly, you are making the point (by way of analogy) in a discussion of grammar and the English language, that Chinese doesn't use the same rules.
I hesitate to point out (again by way of analogy) that Chinese ISN'T English.

But the point still stands- Chinese and English share some of the same phonemes.

Two different types of music have the same relation; arabic music is not western music, but they do share a few elements.

 

[onlyclave]

But the point still stands- Chinese and English share some of the same phonemes.

Two different types of music have the same relation; arabic music is not western music, but they do share a few elements.

Yeah, pitch and rhythm.

 

[Hoover]

Yes, if it sounds bad, it is bad. That statement is not meaningless, and there is a point. The point is that music can only be judged by how it sounds, not by whether the notes fit some theoretical rule. If you like the sound of a flat nine over a minor 7th chord, then play it. If you don't like that sound, then don't play it.

What if someone else plays it, and you and I are both listening, and you like it, and I don't?

Is it good? Is it bad? Is it both?