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.
Formal theory training - why? This is why.
- Thread starter buldog5151bass
- Start date
+1
My only response for comments like these is, "If you want to be Paul Westerberg, don't read music."
They ain't Hendrix either, but in almost any thread regarding learning theory, some fool says, "Well Hendrix didn't know theory." Well, if you are as gifted as Hendrix, don't learn theory.Hate to break it to these folks, but they ain't Paul Westerberg
Hendrix did know theory--he may not have realized it--but he knew some.They ain't Hendrix either, but in almost any thread regarding learning theory, some fool says, "Well Hendrix didn't know theory." Well, if you are as gifted as Hendrix, don't learn theory.
Hendrix was certainly gifted and intuitively knew what sounded good (or learned through trial and error). Music theory is an explanation of what was played and I have never seen any proof that Hendrix could have explained his music although I'm open to being wrong if anyone can provide proof. Being able to play/create and being able to explain what you played/created are two different things.
If he could play it he could explain it on some level--maybe no using the standard terms you learn in formal theory training--but he got the concepts of what made up chords and how melodies work over the rhythm parts, etc.
That much is evident not only from his playing but also his compositions.
No one is saying that he didn't make great music, but the fact that he could play something does not in any way prove he could explain it. I played with an excellent guitarist that could come up with great parts, but he could only show you what he was playing; he didn't even know the names of any of the notes. I don't know why being the most innovative guitarist of his time and one of the most influential musicians of all time isn't enough. There is no need to inflate his resume.
We are obviously using some differing criteria here--I would agree he didn't have formal theory training--but he certainly have informal & practical theory training.
I have no doubt he could explain what he did--but he may not have used the formal terminology (& probably didn't.)
That's really all I'm saying or will say.
If he can show you he understands it on some level.
And Jimi didn't have to prove anything to you about theory.
Are we just making up terms now? Informal and practical theory training?????
There is absolutely no proof he could explain what he did, but if you want to believe it, feel free. Or better yet, show me some proof and I'll believe it too.
I've yet to get engaged in one of these music theory threads when I didn't eventually regret it.
There is no proof he didn't either.
As you brought up his lack of theory knowledge the onus is on you t prove it--not on me.
Exactly. I have a hard time believing Hendrix didn't at least know some scales and chords and how they fit together musically. He probably couldn't read notated music or didn't know all the modes but that doesn't mean he didn't know any theory.
Aw, what happened to
Actually, if you read my posts, I never said he didn't know theory. I said that there was no PROOF that he knew theory. YOU are the one that says he knows theory:
So according to your own logic, the onus is on you!
I said he knows theory on some level--and I explained what I meant by that--every musician knows theory on some level.Aw, what happened to
Actually, if you read my posts, I never said he didn't know theory. I said that there was no PROOF that he knew theory. YOU are the one that says he knows theory:
So according to your own logic, the onus is on you!
Well, if I create my own definitions for words, I can prove anything too.
On to my ignore list you go. I doubt we'll ever agree on anything.
I've agreed with other stuff you posted--no need for that
I also didn't re-define things.
I guess I'm not a "theory legalist"--I hope you aren't as well.
I hope that for all of us.
People don't seem to realize that theories are simply ways of intelligently describing a phenomenon. Music theory describes some concepts in a standardised and organized way.
Be wary of people who think being able to explain something well is a bad thing, even if it's only how you explain it to yourself. Painters learn color theory and you don't hear them griping about that. Why some musicians get in a snit when you want to understand music in a way that allows you a more expansive view of music baffles me.
There's nothing wrong with a shade tree mechanic, but I want to learn enough to get hired by people who want me to fix their Maserati, if folks can understand that comparison. Will learning to work on a Maserati somehow make me incapable of changing a tire on a Yugo?
As a last musing, people that put down theory remind me of the people in the book, "A Cantilcle for Leibowitz" who after nuclear war, basically turned back time by hating knowledge and killing people who were intelligent and read books in what came to be known as "The Great Simplification".
Be wary of people who think being able to explain something well is a bad thing, even if it's only how you explain it to yourself. Painters learn color theory and you don't hear them griping about that. Why some musicians get in a snit when you want to understand music in a way that allows you a more expansive view of music baffles me.
There's nothing wrong with a shade tree mechanic, but I want to learn enough to get hired by people who want me to fix their Maserati, if folks can understand that comparison. Will learning to work on a Maserati somehow make me incapable of changing a tire on a Yugo?
As a last musing, people that put down theory remind me of the people in the book, "A Cantilcle for Leibowitz" who after nuclear war, basically turned back time by hating knowledge and killing people who were intelligent and read books in what came to be known as "The Great Simplification".
I hate that "Famousguy fallacy."
In a college theory class, your knowledge of a concept is tested in 4 areas:
it refers to areas 3 and 4 above: they did not know notation or the academic names of things
No one would argue that Hendrix / McCartney/ Famousguy did not have command of areas 1 & 2
They for sure knew how it sounded and how to play it.
So, if Famous guy did it, why bother with 3 and 4?
From experience I'll say it is much more efficient, faster, clearer, and easier to master 1&2 when you back it up with 3&4
In a college theory class, your knowledge of a concept is tested in 4 areas:
- How it sounds
- how to execute it on an instrument
- how to notate it
- the academic name(s) for it
it refers to areas 3 and 4 above: they did not know notation or the academic names of things
No one would argue that Hendrix / McCartney/ Famousguy did not have command of areas 1 & 2
They for sure knew how it sounded and how to play it.
So, if Famous guy did it, why bother with 3 and 4?
From experience I'll say it is much more efficient, faster, clearer, and easier to master 1&2 when you back it up with 3&4
