Do you need music theory?

[LBS-bass]

I've spent years as a Worship leader and in of the churches I worked for I was told that they had a pianist (should have known something was up then) that was working on a masters degree in music composition. I thought I was the luckiest worship leader on the planet until the first practice.

I was working for a short while with a guy who was a jazz aficionado and owns a music studio nearby, where he offers lessons. He's not a horrible player, he could read my charts well on the fly, but after a few times practicing with him it was clear that he just didn't have a good feel for bringing the music alive. The music wasn't really fun with him, it felt mechanical, and it seemed he was more hung up on making sure my songbook was organized the way he would like it to be (numbered instead of alphabetical, which makes no sense to me). Super nice guy, really, but I just didn't want to be told how to do what I've been doing just fine with for 40 years if there wasn't any fun it in otherwise.

I know another guy who gives lessons here and has an advanced degree in music, but his chops are just not all that great and he can't really solo on the fly very well. Again, a nice guy but not someone I want to be in a band with.

I also have worked with some absolutely brilliant players who were very accomplished teachers at the PhD level.

The education doesn't hurt anyone, but it isn't a golden ticket, either.

 

[LBS-bass]

As an example:
Danny Elfman Biography | Composer & Guitarist

One of those amazingly gifted people, like my friend.

 

[honeyiscool]

I wouldn’t get the opportunities I get if I didn’t have completely fluency in my fundamentals. People sometimes think that you don’t need theory because you won’t be playing anything fancy. It’s rather that if you’re not playing anything fancy, theory helps contextualize almost everything you need to do into easy patterns that you can reduce everything to. It really is just literacy.

 

[honeyiscool]

I was working for a short while with a guy who was a jazz aficionado and owns a music studio nearby, where he offers lessons. He's not a horrible player, he could read my charts well on the fly, but after a few times practicing with him it was clear that he just didn't have a good feel for bringing the music alive. The music wasn't really fun with him, it felt mechanical, and it seemed he was more hung up on making sure my songbook was organized the way he would like it to be (numbered instead of alphabetical, which makes no sense to me). Super nice guy, really, but I just didn't want to be told how to do what I've been doing just fine with for 40 years if there wasn't any fun it in otherwise.

I know another guy who gives lessons here and has an advanced degree in music, but his chops are just not all that great and he can't really solo on the fly very well. Again, a nice guy but not someone I want to be in a band with.

I also have worked with some absolutely brilliant players who were very accomplished teachers at the PhD level.

The education doesn't hurt anyone, but it isn't a golden ticket, either.

On the flip side of this is my drummer. He is in his late 20s, good looking, tall, skinny, charismatic, and he can play the hell out of some drums. People just love him and people just love the way he plays. He just has that “it” factor, he really does. He’s even easy to work with and is just a sweet person. But he doesn’t know the first thing about technique or music theory. He legit learned to play drums by playing those Rock Band games until one day he could play drums. He doesn’t know how to count off a song (I count off most of them), he doesn’t know what it means to play on the “and of 3”, he doesn’t know much about meter or tempo, etc. But he can somehow play so well and I wouldn’t replace him with anyone else because for the music I write, I don’t need him to play anything overly crazy anyway, and everything he brings to the music is just special. And when he nails it, he makes me happy so it’s all worth it.

I always tell him, and I fully believe it, that if he learned a tiny bit of theory and fundamentals, he could be tearing it up professionally. I get gigs all the time because I can learn things and understand other musicians instantly. That, plus I don’t make a scene, is why I get gigs. I tell him that he could understand and visualize so much more if he himself had a way of seeing music in a structured manner. I would start a band with him in a heartbeat even if I started over again. But to recommend him to someone else for the kind of gigs I get, I think he needs a little bit of study. It doesn’t have to be classical style formal education. It just has to be some way of grasping structure in some form. Without that, it’s hard to be more than just a musician in the context of a band.

 

[Droopy_TX]

What I find funny/sad/ironic is that if most musicians redirected just half the time and effort they spend in one month on music forums toward learning music theory, at the end of that month, they'd likely have a fairly functional level of understanding of it.

At least enough not to be dismissive, or scared, of it.

Hey, who's up for a New Year's Resolution?

 

[reverendboom]

I made a New Years resolution 30 years ago that I have been able to keep...I resolved never to make another New Years resolution.

 

[honeyiscool]

What I find funny/sad/ironic is that if most musicians redirected just half the time and effort they spend in one month on music forums toward learning music theory, at the end of that month, they'd likely have a fairly functional level of understanding of it.

At least enough not to be dismissive, or scared, of it.

Hey, who's up for a New Year's Resolution?

Yeah, seriously. I have actually devoted no portion of my life to formal study of theory, but just picked it up through years of classical piano. I think the following could be learned relatively quickly and would be useful for anyone playing popular music:

1. How to find notes on your primary instrument.

2. How to find intervals on your primary instrument.

3. How to make major, minor, and 7ths chords, and how to play them. On a non-chordal instrument, this usually means learning basic arpeggios.

4. How to play a major scale and a pentatonic scale. On this, there are two things we talk about when we say playing a scale. One of them is for the sake of building technique because scales are a big part of being able to play fast. I don't mean that, I mean, how to find the notes that make a scale on your instrument so you can use them to pick out melodies.

5. Key signature. And how to pick out the standard chords in that key signature.

6. Basic chord progressions, like the I-IV-V progressions, how a V7 resolving to a I.

7. How to do basic harmonies, like 3rds and 6ths.

8. How to count beats, call out rhythms, etc.

9. How to read what others are doing.

10. How to read or write music in any kind of a formal manner. This might mean chord charts, Nashville system, classical notation, lead sheets, whatever works.

This probably takes more than a month, but learn to do the above, and it will only make anybody such a better musician.

 

[DJ Bebop]

An example of a music illiterate but one who does have a grasp of music theory:




Garner began playing piano at the age of three. His elder siblings were taught piano by Miss Bowman. From an early age, Erroll would sit down and play anything she had demonstrated, just like Miss Bowman, his eldest sister Martha said.[9] Garner was self-taught and remained an "ear player" all his life, never learning to read music

Erroll Garner - Wikipedia

 

[DJ Bebop]

Another cat who didn't read. He couldn't even read or, write his own name until Stephane Grappelli taught him
to write his own name.

 

[LBS-bass]

There is no right and wrong in music. Sometimes your own interpretation can be a better, more imaginative idea compared to what is written in someone else's notation. There is generally accepted theory, but it boils down to this: if it sounds good to the listener, it is good.

There is right and wrong when the recording has a C#maj7 and the transcription shows a C#maj (or worse, minor). Or when it gives you a quarter note at the C when the original version had a half note at the F. That's the right and wrong of transcribed music, and there's an awful lot of wrong out there.

Now, you, as another artist, may decide to interpret this music differently and play any chords you want. But if I'm looking at sheet music, I expect it to be accurate to the recorded music it says it is a transcription of. Expect may be too strong a word, because it often isn't.

 

[DJ Bebop]

There is right and wrong when the recording has a C#maj7 and the transcription shows a C#maj (or worse, minor). Or when it gives you a quarter note at the C when the original version had a half note at the F. That's the right and wrong of transcribed music, and there's an awful lot of wrong out there.

The first illegitimate Real Book and other fake books of the period were horrendous.

 

[byacey]

There is right and wrong when the recording has a C#maj7 and the transcription shows a C#maj (or worse, minor). Or when it gives you a quarter note at the C when the original version had a half note at the F. That's the right and wrong of transcribed music, and there's an awful lot of wrong out there.

Now, you, as another artist, may decide to interpret this music differently and play any chords you want. But if I'm looking at sheet music, I expect it to be accurate to the recorded music it says it is a transcription of. Expect may be too strong a word, because it often isn't.

I was speaking in the context of guys that are illiterate and play be ear.

Playing a C# triad against a C# Maj7 isn't the end of the world, just the M7 is omitted. Transcriptions can often have errors, and someone playing by ear may well introduce all sorts of errors too. As long as human beings are involved in the process, I don't see any way to prevent errors. In any case, if you don't understand music theory, you likely wouldn't recognize errors in transcriptions.

I'm not even sure anymore what point you are trying to make.

 

[SLO Surfer]

Maybe he's just unusually gifted.

many of the world’s most gifted musicians are musically illiterate and/or know little to no music theory. Your musically illiterate friend sounds very gifted.

 

[SteveCS]

...
In any case, if you don't understand music theory, you likely wouldn't recognize errors in transcriptions.
...

I was about to post a very similar comment.

 

[Colin Cunliffe]

I was speaking in the context of guys that are illiterate and play be ear.

Playing a C# triad against a C# Maj7 isn't the end of the world, just the M7 is omitted. Transcriptions can often have errors, and someone playing by ear may well introduce all sorts of errors too. As long as human beings are involved in the process, I don't see any way to prevent errors. In any case, if you don't understand music theory, you likely wouldn't recognize errors in transcriptions.

I'm not even sure anymore what point you are trying to make.

I can't remember who has it but on here I have seen

" No such as things as wrong notes, just passing notes"

 

[LBS-bass]

I was speaking in the context of guys that are illiterate and play be ear.

Playing a C# triad against a C# Maj7 isn't the end of the world, just the M7 is omitted. Transcriptions can often have errors, and someone playing by ear may well introduce all sorts of errors too. As long as human beings are involved in the process, I don't see any way to prevent errors. In any case, if you don't understand music theory, you likely wouldn't recognize errors in transcriptions.

I'm not even sure anymore what point you are trying to make.

It's possible to make more than one point in any given conversation. I sense some hostility in that comment. I was really just having some discussion here. Sorry if it bothers you.

 

[Colin Cunliffe]

It's possible to make more than one point in any given conversation. I sense some hostility in that comment. I was really just having some discussion here. Sorry if it bothers you.

I refer you to my previous answer to you, IT SERVES YOU RIGHT for abusing me

Yes it is a problem with the written word, it doesn't convey the real emotions, gestures behind a statement and it does appear that it is easier to ASS U ME the wrong intentions.

By the way, I wasn't trying to imply that none readers of dots have no theory, I know loads of guys that run me ragged and yet come to me for help if they get landed with dots.

The other thing that I've picked up on during this discussion is that music majors ( I hope thats correct for the USA) can be seen as not performers, don't forget they may have majored in a certain style/genre, that will always be their default settings and it may take a little while to pick up the nuances of the style your playing in.

What I have witnessed many times is that the theory guy is able to take on board the requirements and make amendments to his/her playing.

ALSO a very important point is that EVERYONE can call up examples that prove their point, make sure you're not calling up the exceptions to the rule and actually proving the other persons point.

Back to a little saying - you only learn all of the rules so that you know which ones you're breaking!!!

As always no matter how or why you play ENJOY what you are playing.

 

[LBS-bass]

I refer you to my previous answer to you, IT SERVES YOU RIGHT for abusing me

Yes it is a problem with the written word, it doesn't convey the real emotions, gestures behind a statement and it does appear that it is easier to ASS U ME the wrong intentions.

By the way, I wasn't trying to imply that none readers of dots have no theory, I know loads of guys that run me ragged and yet come to me for help if they get landed with dots.

The other thing that I've picked up on during this discussion is that music majors ( I hope thats correct for the USA) can be seen as not performers, don't forget they may have majored in a certain style/genre, that will always be there default settings and it may take a little while to pick up the nuances of the style your playing in.

What I have witnessed many times is that the theory guy is able to take on board the requirements and make amendments to his/her playing.

ALSO a very important point is that EVERYONE can call up examples that prove their point, make sure you're not calling up the exceptions to the rule and actually proving the other persons point.

Back to a little saying - you only learn all of the rules so that you know which ones you're breaking!!!

As always no matter how or why you play ENJOY what you are playing.

And as usual, i agree with much of what you're saying here. I've been deliberately and obtusely splitting a few hairs here to try to illustrate a point, which is that we all use theory to some degree, even when we don't realize we're using it. My friend instinctively knows that certain chord progressions don't work and others do, but he doesn't know why. He's not really literate, but he has a good grasp of practical application.

People often ask the question about theory when what they really mean is "do we need formal or advanced music education?" And I wish I had more formal education than I do, so I would say yes, it's helpful. It's not always needed in order to be creative, but I don't know that it's ever hurt someone who had a creative instinct.

And now I'm going to go and ENJOY my practice because i have a show tomorrow and another one on Friday. Ciao.

 

[Mark Ambler]

After someone mentioned Errol Garner, it made me want to pose the following question:
Could someone who is musically illiterate, play 'Giant Steps'?

In theory, I guess

Apologies.

 

[stringtapper]

This question comes up a lot on here. You’ll get two camps replying:

The ones who know music theory are convinced it’s indispensable.

Those who have gotten along just fine without it are convinced it’s not all that valuable.

There's a third camp though. I'm one of them and there are several others who have already chimed in on this thread.

It's the camp that realizes that when you're playing music you're using theory whether you know it or not. Most of us from that camp probably also fall in the "it's indispensable" camp, but aren't dogmatic about it so we don't say that to people.

This is one reason that I prefer the term "music fundamentals" in place of what most people call "music theory." To me, knowing what scales, chords, rhythms, and all the rest mean, either semantically or aurally, is just the basic, barebones of understanding music. In my world (I happen to be trained as music theorist, yes that's a thing) "music theory" means a whole lot more than these fundamentals.

I get the feeling that if the term "music fundamentals" were used ubiquitously in place of "music theory" there would be much fewer people falling in the "I don't know it/need it" camp. The term "theory" gives people images of professors and ivory towers and "book learnin'" and for whatever reason that turns some people off, or even outright scares them.

Which is also a reason I always make the point to students that music theory isn't supposed to be studied while sitting in front of a fire with your feet propped up and sipping on a glass of wine. It should be studied at your instrument, digging in, getting your hands dirty, and hearing what you're learning. (I can't take credit for that. It's from one of my teachers, Dan Haerle.)