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.
How much music theory do you really need to know?
- Thread starter IamGroot
- Start date
Being really good at playing by ear absolutely requires you to know quite a bit of theory--intervals, harmony, rhythm, and so on. I think too many people confuse "knowing theory" with being able to read notation. I know orchestral musicians who can't improvise a note. I've had them in my studio! They literally can barely play if there isn't notation in front of them. One could make a case that the ear player who can improvise and create great parts on the fly with other musicians actually has a better grasp of "theory" than those folks.
Exactly this. When people don’t have the language of theory, it can become frustrating to communicate with them. I took a lesson with a famous bassist last week and he wanted me to do something that I had trouble hearing. I was struggling and only after listening back to the recording did I realize he wanted me to play a variation of a whole tone scale. Had he just said “whole tone scale” it would have been a smoother lesson.
Exactly. I think the thread title is actually not a great question (to put it fairly politely). You don’t actually NEED to learn anything if you really dislike learning so much. Me, I don’t learn music theory, or anything really, because I NEED it. I learn it because I love it.
Plenty of players get by without it. I would contend that the biggest value add is that knowing theory lets us communicate in the same language rather than the endless “do this 4 times, then that 2 times” or “hey what note are you playing at that one part” conversations that plague amateur rehearsals.
I have a basic understanding of music theory. Although I've managed to peel off the first couple of layers, that has been challenging. I still don't understand modes and probably never will. I still struggle with where to put my fingers on the fretboard when learning a song.
Only theory I've learned is knowing the name of the notes on the neck to be able to discuss with "real" musicians i'm playing with, and to be able to follow a chord charts , or real books chords when i've started to play jazz. I've tried to learn harmony and even to read music sheets. But it's definitely not for me. I've 50 and play by ears since i've started music at 18. As an amateur with a paying-bills day job, i prefer use my music time to play, work music with my ears. It's a real pleasure and little by little i improve my playing. That is my everyday joy in life.
That sort of works when the individual is the primary singer/songwriter/front man. But I guarantee that someone in that person's orbit provides the theory knowledge. So in a way, the willfully ignorant are freeloaders. That can sort of work if you're in charge. But for me it's a net negative that affects my decision to be involved with a project.
I just hate cleaning toilets. Figuring out what some genius du jour is actually doing (because he doesn't have a freakin' clue) feels like cleaning toilets to me. Anyone who considers themselves a songwriter, and cannot chart out their songs in some fashion (chords over lyrics minimum), ain't really a songwriter. There are exceptions to that, but they mostly prove the rule.
For what I dream of accomplishing,I need to know a whole lot more than I know now.
Last edited:
I always think of it as, how much language theory do you really need to know to get by in the world.
A lot of folks got their basic language education at home and at school to communicate with fellow humans in their language group and get along fine, some go on to take in higher education and do better. Some didn't learn language in school, if they went at all, and get by, somewhat.
It all depends on what level of fluency one wants to cultivate or operate at.
IMHO, of course.
Last edited:
That's a silly statement. You certainly don't need to understand a lot of theory to hear if you're playing the right notes. A good ear is a good ear - having that skill means you know how to play the right notes, whether or not you understand a lot of the theory behind "what's right and what isn't". If someone is playing wrong notes, and not hearing that they're wrong, it's not because they don't understand theory, they just don't have a good ear.
Music theory is a way of explaining to people what sounds good, and to some extent, why. It was developed after the foundations of music existed, not before. It is not at all required to be able to play good sounding music. People made music for thousands of years without having western music theory around to teach them what notes to play.
Last edited:
I’m my personal journey, my theory and reading skills really improved in my mid 40s and as a result I think I became a much more complete musician as a result.
I learned lots and lots of theory and read both clefs during my piano training (imagine playing all the different scales in all the keys up and down a piano!), and it actually it existed in a vacuum in my brain . . . Until I began playing bar gigs by ear, and then I instantly had labels and descriptions for everything I was hearing that WASN'T written on a page.
I had a similar experience when I worked with a very schooled drummer who explained the rudiments to me. One gig, I could start hearing when he did 7-stroke rolls and played some of the longer ones vertically, from the kick through the snare across the hihat and crashes. I gave him that look and he grinned I was hearing it.
So I'd say, every bit your grey matter will absorb, you always use it, just like language or math.
I had a similar experience when I worked with a very schooled drummer who explained the rudiments to me. One gig, I could start hearing when he did 7-stroke rolls and played some of the longer ones vertically, from the kick through the snare across the hihat and crashes. I gave him that look and he grinned I was hearing it.
So I'd say, every bit your grey matter will absorb, you always use it, just like language or math.
I can't be bothered reading the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating others but IMHO you don't need to be able to talk about theory in the accepted terms, although it helps in many situations.
You need to have an inherent understanding of as much as possible though and the more you understand the better you are.
To explain, have a conversation with a 7 year old about english grammar theory. They are likely unable to explain much of anything or talk about it yet they can talk english very well because the have an inherent understanding of the rules without being able to articulate them.
Someone who can play a large assortment of music is also likely to be inherently fluent in music theory even if they can't articulate it well.
You need to have an inherent understanding of as much as possible though and the more you understand the better you are.
To explain, have a conversation with a 7 year old about english grammar theory. They are likely unable to explain much of anything or talk about it yet they can talk english very well because the have an inherent understanding of the rules without being able to articulate them.
Someone who can play a large assortment of music is also likely to be inherently fluent in music theory even if they can't articulate it well.
Assuming music theory is like theory in any other discipline, then this can break down. Bessel functions will explain the spectrum of a carrier/modulator stack in phase modulation synthesis, but they have nothing to do with how phase modulation synthesisers produce sound (they use logarithmic time domain additions and lookup tables for speed). FFT and DCT transforms might 'explain' harmonic details in sound, but most sounds have been made by age-old methods, in time domain, having nothing to do with these new mathematical frequency domain methods.
I'm not denying the use of extended theory, it actually has descriptive and predictive power, but it is no substitute for exploration. One reason a lot of people seem to despair of there being little new music, and so much derivation, may be because those who adhere to theory stop exploring the instant they reach the edge of their maps!
You had me at that moment, but I may be taking this in a different direction from what you intended.
There is a sound I made on a phase mod synth which I play with a chord that sounds discordant on all sounds I have ever heard, except one. This sound uses one of the rarely used feedback loops in the DX7, carrier back up to modulator input. It is a very odd harp-like sound, and that same chord sounds like a deeply resonant bell, but much more naturally harmonic than most bells.
My point is that 'theory' can break down the moment interesting timbres are used, or are mixed with others. A skilled orchestrator may well know a lot of theory, but in the end they have to go with what sounds good.
Theory arose from this process, so for me it will always be less of a priority. Most times I look at the theory, it isn't long before I see some didactic statement I disagree with, but good sounding music is free of that limitation, and I think that's more interesting, more liberating, and it feels better.
When theory shows me something I didn't notice, I'll explore it, but I prefer to cut to the chase. In the long run, it seems to matter less, not more.
Depends on the band you are playing with. You could potentially not even know the open strings or the notes on those strings.
If you are playing with others that will tune you up and will show you the roots of each chord and will let you play just that, you are good to go.
I confess that I don't even have the sharps and flats memorized by key. Never have. YouTube is my friend to help me sort that out in practice.
ATST advancement is desirable. You wouldn't want to revisit that 7 year old, ten or twenty years later and find they are no further along than they were at 7.
I think a combination of Victor Wooten's theory of leaning like you pointed out, leaning language like a kid, early at home without knowing the rules and just doing it, but after a while, adding academics to the program, like Jeff Berlin suggests. Over time they blend together to make for a more rounded and useful musician in the end.
Firstly, I never said not to learn theory, the question was how much do you need.
And secondly I am probably about as articulate with the rules of english grammar now as I was when
I was 7. I inherently understand them better but don't have the terminology to describe it any more than I did then. It's not something I am interested in, was taught or have the need to communicate to others.
The same may or may not apply to music theory depending on your goals. I certainly know more music theory than many of the people that I play with but I certainly wouldn't consider myself fluent.
I find I have very little need of that in practice. You learn the shapes and you are good to go on something like a bass. I also got very frustrated when I was young by the fact I learnt these keys and then they didn't work or help me in the music I was trying to learn anyway. Turns out a lot of contemporary music is in the modes rather than the major or minor scale.
