Hypothetical Question - 2 Bassist play the same, but one does not know theory

[Fergie Fulton]

It is really a professional thing. if you can read and have good theory knowledge then you can play in most situations because all you need is a score or chord sheet and you are good to go. If you learn by ear you have to memorise the song, so that takes time, something pro players don't always have.

The point is why waste time memorising songs/music when you can just read them? I say learn as oppose to memorise, because the truth is if you have no theory base then there is nothing to learn, because you don't really grasp what is going on so what to learn from what you are memorising.
Yes there are certain exceptions to the rule, i remember watching a documentary on Phil Collins being part of a big band project for a live concert. He employed a session drummer to play and record the score and then he learned what the drummer played. What took the drummer a few hours to play took Phil weeks and week to learn.
And there you have one of those exceptions, Phil is a hugely talented musician and songwriter but does not have a full comprehensive theory knowledge, just what he needs to operate in his musical world, so i would assume he uses all he has to its limits?

 

[onosson]

Standard western music theory is a language to describe music. It is not the only possible language, nor the only one in use in the world - but it is very common and will definitely be an asset to anyone working in N. America or Europe, and many many other places.

I've known people who know very little theory who are fantastic musicians and great songwriters. I know people who know extensive theory and could not improvise or write a song to save their life (exaggeration, but you get my point).

Overall, it is a tool, and will help you if you want to do something for which it is the appropriate tool. And, knowing it will broaden your perspective on music overall. Never a bad thing IMHO.

 

[mambo4]

Does the one who is trained in theory a better bassist? ...it is astonishing to me how many people will blow off other musicians if they find that they don't know any theory.

Some reasons to I prefer players who know theory (either implicitly "by ear" or explicitly "by the book"):
-more efficient communication of musical ideas
-more efficient learning of new material
-more efficient creation of supporting parts
-ability to change keys on the fly
-an implied degree of experience, effort and ability.

in short, Theory = efficiency. Famous musicians noted for their lack of theory generally have put in vast amounts of time to pick it up implicitly "by ear"...In my life, I need all the time I can spare.

Players I have encountered who are "naturally" talented but know no theory tend to be easily stumped by unfamiliar music.

 

[onosson]

And to answer the OP...

One knows theory and one does not. Does the one who is trained in theory a better bassist? I've heard many people say it does, and that does not make any sense to me, as you ears can't tell a difference.

I don't believe it does. But the real question is: "a better bassist" for what purpose??

 

[fingerbun]

I came to formal study late in life. For some styles it is a serious limitation (especially orchestral) and for all styles theory helps.

All that head knowledge is theory. The human brain will assemble and organize knowledge. Formal study just helps you have a comprehensive grounding.

The useful bits vary by genre. In orchestral there is a lot of science in bowing and you have to read everything. In jazz it helps to have deep understanding of how chords work. In being versatile I need to know how a jazz walking line might differ from blues or a rock line. And so on.

Don't assume your tastes in music won't change.

 

[RedLeg]

Your ears will tell the difference when you ask them to read sheet, or improvise a series of chord changes.

that separates the men from the boys there.

great ears are an awesome tool, but when your brain already knows where to go with out fully depending on your ears it is a nice thing.

 

[Beginner Bass]

Even if the playing of both of them is exactly the same in every aspect, I feel the theory-trained one is a better musician, as he has the capability to understand what he plays, and why it works like it does, thus his "creations" can have a better chance of being appropriate.

 

[fdeck]

This is like: Two people each carry a 100 pound sack, but one of them is capable of carrying a 200 pound sack. Which one is stronger?

 

[RedLeg]

both can do the job. one can do more if called upon. which one do you want to be?

 

[Febs]

This is like: Two people each carry a 100 pound sack, but one of them is capable of carrying a 200 pound sack. Which one is stronger?

Great analogy!

 

[Fergie Fulton]

This is like: Two people each carry a 100 pound sack, but one of them is capable of carrying a 200 pound sack. Which one is stronger?

Great analogy!

LOL the one that can carry the 200lb sack or am i missing a point.

Look at it this way which one is the better asset, which one has more options, and which one can cover the other with ease?

If say two people were out hiking in a remote location and each had 75lb back packs. If the 100lb man hurts himself and can't carry his back pack, then the 200lb man can take up the pack and help him and them continue. If the 200lb man gets hurt, then they have to decide what 25lbs of equipment and rations they want to take from his pack to continue on there way.

Again the player who has more options has the choice to play more or less, like the analogy the stronger one has the choice to what he wants to lift. The player with less options is restricted by circumstance not choice, his options are limited, the same as the weaker person in the analogy....lifting 130lbs is not an option for him.
If we even assumed each man weight 175lbs the stronger one if needed to can carry his friend to safety with a few essentials, the weaker one can't...again he has no options.

In the end there is no real need for analogies as they can be used to make points for either side of a point. The fact is the pro player with more options will prevail over the pro player with less or none to fall back on.

 

[BassChuck]

Some reasons to I prefer players who know theory (either implicitly "by ear" or explicitly "by the book"):
-more efficient communication of musical ideas
-more efficient learning of new material
-more efficient creation of supporting parts
-ability to change keys on the fly
-an implied degree of experience, effort and ability.

in short, Theory = efficiency. Famous musicians noted for their lack of theory generally have put in vast amounts of time to pick it up implicitly "by ear"...In my life, I need all the time I can spare.

Players I have encountered who are "naturally" talented but know no theory tend to be easily stumped by unfamiliar music.

This has been my experience many, many times over the last 40 years of dealing with musicians.
Many times I've found that musicians with gifted ears but little theory knowledge will fall back on their 'bag of tricks' to learn new music (or new arrangements of old music) and not really get whats going on... at least not until someone takes the time to spoon feed them.

It's all about communication. Communication with fellow musicians, and yes, that group includes fellow musicians who have long since died. I'd really don't think I'd like to be a part of a rehearsal where the viola players had to pick their parts off a recording of a Brahms symphony... or where the 2nd tenor sax had to deal with a Benny Goodman recording.

 

[Boyakasha]

If it's a cover band it shouldn't make a difference, if it's originals then I'd pick the bassist who knows theory if that's the only difference between them.

 

[JimmyM]

If it's a cover band it shouldn't make a difference, if it's originals then I'd pick the bassist who knows theory if that's the only difference between them.

in my cover band, knowing how to read is a requirement.

 

[fdeck]

LOL the one that can carry the 200lb sack or am i missing a point.

Look at it this way which one is the better asset, which one has more options, and which one can cover the other with ease?

If say two people were out hiking in a remote location and each had 75lb back packs. If the 100lb man hurts himself and can't carry his back pack, then the 200lb man can take up the pack and help him and them continue. If the 200lb man gets hurt, then they have to decide what 25lbs of equipment and rations they want to take from his pack to continue on there way.

Again the player who has more options has the choice to play more or less, like the analogy the stronger one has the choice to what he wants to lift. The player with less options is restricted by circumstance not choice, his options are limited, the same as the weaker person in the analogy....lifting 130lbs is not an option for him.
If we even assumed each man weight 175lbs the stronger one if needed to can carry his friend to safety with a few essentials, the weaker one can't...again he has no options.

In the end there is no real need for analogies as they can be used to make points for either side of a point. The fact is the pro player with more options will prevail over the pro player with less or none to fall back on.

Precisely.

 

[bassladyj]

It just depends on the playing situations you'd like to be in.

 

[honeyiscool]

The OP is right in that if two people are given the same notes to play, and have the same technique, they will not be distinguishable and in that context, neither musician is better.

However, picking the notes to play is 90% of being a musician, and theory can give you the advantage there.

I must say, though, that in my mind, the best form of music theory is merely acquired over years of practice and musical learning. I think classroom music theory is not something that makes particularly enlightening as a musician because that's merely knowledge and not wisdom.

So someone who can't read sheet but has built true understanding of music over decades of playing a variety of music might actually have more practical knowledge of music theory than someone who just graduated from music school and therefore the dude who can't read might sound better than the textbook music theory expert. But in the end, it's really that the better player does have a better grasp of music theory.

 

[dj150888]

I think classroom music theory is not something that makes particularly enlightening as a musician because that's merely knowledge and not wisdom.

Wisdom is just knowledge with a longer beard and some more greys.

Knowledge is knowledge. You know something or you don't.

 

[honeyiscool]

I say otherwise. Knowing music theory is knowing the rules. But you don't really know music theory until you don't even think about the rules anymore and you follow and break them as you please and you just do it naturally.

 

[suraci]

HOW does the non theory bass player learn his parts?

Not one person mentioned a generally non theory topic that is vital, The WAY you play the notes. The feel... how relaxed it is. Also the sensitivity to others in the group, not just yourself. For bass especially, rhythm, which is really not taught as theory.. not really.. I don't mean knowing a quarter note from a whole note. ( Rhythm is very very neglected topic in academia )

If a person is looking to not learn about a universally acknowledged topic like intervals, acoustics, triads, harmony, counterpoint, form... I wonder how serious they are, OR they are eccentric highly talented persons? May just play bass for fun!