• 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.

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

#61
honeyiscool said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't get why people look at music theory as a set of rules. Its not "rules", its a language. A way of communicating ideas efficiently. It doesn't set down any "you can do this, but not this" type of thing. Its merely giving names and explanations for the relationship between different notes.
 
#62
honeyiscool said:
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.
Click to expand...

The reality is in the pro world, that the player with none or less theory skills will never be given the chance, opportunity, break..call it what you want, because he is not qualified to be there in the first place. The idea that in a pro situation that i would have to carry or have others carry me is ridiculous.

Being able to produce an end result eventually, or something that sound the same is not what's its about, its producing an end result when and where required under many different situation as written or as instructed. If given chord sheets you are expected to play more than root-5, or basic chord tone interpretations for your wage....after all if others can do it, then why are they paying you?:)
 
#64
dj150888 said:
I don't get why people look at music theory as a set of rules. Its not "rules", its a language. A way of communicating ideas efficiently. It doesn't set down any "you can do this, but not this" type of thing. Its merely giving names and explanations for the relationship between different notes.
Click to expand...

Let's see if we can get passed the language differences. I am an older guy, so my language is maybe different.
Rules, is an annoying off putting term, but that is the term I was taught, and call it guidelines, or restrictions or have at it.. when my teacher said no parallel fifths, that to me was a rule not to be "violated".
It's not that i didn't wonder, "Gee I wonder if Mozart ever did parallel fifths in his music?"... yes, I wondered, and still wonder- I also know he DID use FIfths on occasion.
But here is what is so vital.. a few things

The restrictions, or rules, inadvertently guided me to sound closer to a certain style of music that was previously beyond my grasp. Why, because the music that I was studying was from a prior century, and back then they had all sorts of rules. If you don't adhere to the rules, like a recipe, you will not get the desired musical genre. It is impossible to sound like Mozart if you don't adhere to his 200 year old musical map, so called "restrictions" and all.

Even better than that... I was so pleasantly surprised to find out that all of the many rules in early counterpoint ( note against note ) gave me the MUSICAL GIFT i can barely explain. It taught me about the tones in a way that would be impossible to be sensitive to, without first learning to create with much much less freedom of choices... such as no parallel oct, or no unprepared dissonances.
BAck in the day, you could not just play a seventh chord.. Oh no, you had to FIRST PREPARE the ear with that tone ( in this case eg key of C major an F in a G7 chord ) which was ruled to be a dissonance, a G chord with an F in it ( a seventh )was ruled as a harsh dissonance, so the F was the dissonant tone, the PREVIOUS chord had to contain that F but in a CONSONANT environment, namely either a Dminor or an F major, in both cases, the F is heard as very CONSONANT, THEN the F would be held over into the succeeding G chord..where it was, so to speak, SUSPENDED as a DISSONANCE. this is called preparation of the dissonance and finally resolution in the following chord. meaning the dissonant tone ( F ) HAD TO resolve ( ONLY in one direction ) , DOWN a DIATONIC step. So Preparation chord, dissonant chord and resolution.. 3 chords to deal with one meager seventh!!! Amazing.. but in that restricted world your ear gets very very sensitive.. like eating only apples.,, the day you eat a peanut, oh boy, does that peanut taste good. Your ear becomes very discerning to what before was just another ( another peanut!) 7th chord, big deal. No, it was a big deal, I learned the big difference between triad and seventh and between consonance and a little more dissonant in the baroque system. The restriction is your friend. Back in the day we heard the polarity "freedom within the Form". Learn the Form only then can you gradually be free of it. I think dropping early counterpoint is a very bad idea, for these reasons; regardless of what modern music you wish to study.
 
#66
dj150888 said:
I don't get why people look at music theory as a set of rules. Its not "rules", its a language. A way of communicating ideas efficiently. It doesn't set down any "you can do this, but not this" type of thing. Its merely giving names and explanations for the relationship between different notes.
Click to expand...

This -

I am a long-time player that has only had moderate understanding of theory and reading skills; am working on it now because 1) I can communicate better with others, and 2) it is giving me a whole new set of tools and ideas to get creative with.

But damn, its hard to learn when you're in your 50's!
 
#67
Music theory isn't just a method of communication.

Theory isn't just knowing what a diminished chord is, what a 7th is, it's not just reading music. To say that you know theory means that you know the point of an augmented chord and what kind of space that creates, what chords should come after which, which notes can help lead into other chords, how to use the whole tone scale for a certain effect, designing the best sounding 8-note run to span two wide pitches, how to voice chords, things like that.

That's theory. Knowing chord names and notes is a tiny, tiny fraction of music theory.
 
#68
suraci said:
Even better than that... I was so pleasantly surprised to find out that all of the many rules in early counterpoint ( note against note ) gave me the MUSICAL GIFT i can barely explain. It taught me about the tones in a way that would be impossible to be sensitive to, without first learning to create with much much less freedom of choices... such as no parallel oct, or no unprepared dissonances.
BAck in the day, you could not just play a seventh chord.. Oh no, you had to FIRST PREPARE the ear with that tone ( in this case eg key of C major an F in a G7 chord ) which was ruled to be a dissonance, a G chord with an F in it ( a seventh )was ruled as a harsh dissonance, so the F was the dissonant tone, the PREVIOUS chord had to contain that F but in a CONSONANT environment, namely either a Dminor or an F major, in both cases, the F is heard as very CONSONANT, THEN the F would be held over into the succeeding G chord..where it was, so to speak, SUSPENDED as a DISSONANCE. this is called preparation of the dissonance and finally resolution in the following chord. meaning the dissonant tone ( F ) HAD TO resolve ( ONLY in one direction ) , DOWN a DIATONIC step. So Preparation chord, dissonant chord and resolution.. 3 chords to deal with one meager seventh!!! Amazing.. but in that restricted world your ear gets very very sensitive.. like eating only apples.,, the day you eat a peanut, oh boy, does that peanut taste good. Your ear becomes very discerning to what before was just another ( another peanut!) 7th chord, big deal. No, it was a big deal, I learned the big difference between triad and seventh and between consonance and a little more dissonant in the baroque system. The restriction is your friend. Back in the day we heard the polarity "freedom within the Form". Learn the Form only then can you gradually be free of it. I think dropping early counterpoint is a very bad idea, for these reasons; regardless of what modern music you wish to study.
Click to expand...
Yeah, reading this makes me convinced that you do know music theory. I'm not so sure that people just talking about theory as a form of communication understand what music theory means.

And yeah, you're absolutely correct. I never really learned any of this in a classroom, but when you learn classical music and spend years of reading and playing Mozart, Chopin, Bach, and Beethoven, you can often pick up on what they're trying to do musically and then you can gain a practical knowledge of theory that is, in my opinion, very, very valuable. You're probably not going to use these "rules" all the time, but they can really help you become a great musician.

To me, for a bassist, I think the ultimate test for if you know music theory is whether you can improvise a great walking bass line on a repeated chord progression for 5 minutes without becoming repetitive. Most bassists would fail this.
 
#71
honeyiscool said:
Music theory isn't just a method of communication.

Theory isn't just knowing what a diminished chord is, what a 7th is, it's not just reading music. To say that you know theory means that you know the point of an augmented chord and what kind of space that creates, what chords should come after which, which notes can help lead into other chords, how to use the whole tone scale for a certain effect, designing the best sounding 8-note run to span two wide pitches, how to voice chords, things like that.

That's theory. Knowing chord names and notes is a tiny, tiny fraction of music theory.
Click to expand...

You know your stuff, and I respect you know your stuff ;)

But for anyone who hasn't had an immersion in the classical field (a long term partner did from the age of 7) you do have to do the groundwork before you can start to absorb it and it becomes second nature. You do have to do that work, to spell-out those tonalities and ideas before uptake. I wouldn't go assuming everyone here has had an upbringing in classical music and it's imparted and absorbed knowledge, assuming is a mistake ;)
 
#73
Going back to the original question, I think the person who knows theory is much better off than someone who has a gift of a good ear and can repeat what they hear. I love music theory, but don't profess to have a great deal of knowledge (or as much knowledge as I should given the number of nights I have fallen asleep reading about theory).

I played with a couple of guitar guys in a group that I just left who knew zero about theory. I was playing roots and fifths on a song in the key of C and the lead player asked me why I was playing a G when the chord was a C. When I explained I was playing a fifth with the root, he had no idea what I was talking about. True story, I swear.

Anyway, let me just say that I think much too much is made of scales. I simply try to keep it chordal and simple. Respect the chord and serve the song. Although having said that I really appreciate the players who know that stuff.
 
#74
I believe bass playing IS drum roll please.. the art of playing the root ( OR the exception.. intended bass note by composer eg a note other than the root the composer INTENDED- -a "bass note" means, the note intended by the composer, like an inversion where the root of chord is NOT the bass note... ) All other notes ( other than the intended bass note, which is often the root of the chord ) are subsidiary to the root in 1000 cases out of 999.
In key of C major if first chord is C then bass players goal is to artfully make that C note the primary note. the emphasized note, often by playing it at the beginning of the phrase or bar line ( unless anticipating the and of 4 in the previous bar, in 4/4 time ).
The second most important note is an octave away from the root ( or BAss note in the case of inversions ) and of course the next most important note is generally the fifth of that bass note ( usually the root of the chord .. sorry, this is a little tricky 0_0 ) . These note options more or less follow the overtone series. So a bass player wpuld do well to learn a little theory. But frankly, when was the last time knowing the difference between a diminished third and an augmented second REALLY mattered? At some point your musical instincts have to take over. So SOME knowledge of music is helpful, but I would not over do it either. I was teaching a friend of mine the other day ( a non money situation ) and I realized my knowledge of MODAL music was limited. And it was limited because long ago I questioned the whole theory of it. The last few days I have been speaking with music teachers about it, unearthing my old realization that sometimes people over do it, over intellectualize. I have yet to decide how I feel about modal harmony and where to draw that line.
 
#75
Speaking of "making too much of scales" I just started thinking about theory questions again. I know some theory, But I am sensitive to the idea of when enough is enough.. don't waste time with it.. kind of thing. Anyway, I was reading something by Mark Levine where he claims that scales became popular because chords where too hard to deal with.
In other words a C E G Bb D F# A chord is called ( I believe.. correct me if I am off )
A C13 #11 If you will notice, all SEVEN tones ( seven is the most common number of notes in a scale, not counting the octave eg 12345671) ARE represented in this SEVEN note chord. I just found it to be interesting. Like wave particle theory conundrum. Is it a scale or a chord? I think loving the music ( heart ) is primary. From your natural love of music will follow PLAYING the music repeatedly. Playing it for hours at a time, will grant you FAMILIARITY with the tones and rhythms in question. And that's about it!! Theory prone people seem to equate their intellectual FAMILIARITY with AURAL FAMILIARITY. While intellectual is useful, it rates a distant second IMO to AURAL familiarity... knowing a song inside and out, just because you love it, and have played it. Of course the other argument from theory side is, a deeper intellectual ( theory ) knowledge will open up new AURAL surprises, things you may have missed!! As you were.. ha ha ha
 
#76
Skitch it! said:
You know your stuff, and I respect you know your stuff ;)

But for anyone who hasn't had an immersion in the classical field (a long term partner did from the age of 7) you do have to do the groundwork before you can start to absorb it and it becomes second nature. You do have to do that work, to spell-out those tonalities and ideas before uptake. I wouldn't go assuming everyone here has had an upbringing in classical music and it's imparted and absorbed knowledge, assuming is a mistake ;)
Click to expand...

I know a lot of classical players who are awesome if you give them dots but useless if required to improvise.

In general I reckon jazz players have a better grasp of theory.

Mind you, I'll bet on the classical guys to have the best grasp of technique.
 
#77
Music, depending on the style, heavily relies on spontaneous composition aptitude.
I put classical ( I may be wrong, and I am prepared to be flamed by whomever ) as lower on that hierarchy, because they are reinterpreting, but not recomposing music.
In other styles of music, the ability to make things up on the spot, is highly emphasized.. I rate a jazz musician to be high in this ability.. it s practically in his title.. jazz musician.
Bass playing is very very much about HOW YOU PLAY those notes. Not only the notes, but the feel of them.
Since a bass player is playing significantly simpler parts ( leaving certain genre's out, the exceptions... avant garde.. some metal ) than the guitarist, his FEEL is primary.
In a perfect world, all players would have great feel and great melodic inventiveness, including spontaneity. But back to reality, a bass player's primary gig, is to be subservient to the soloists, and to lay down a carpet of groove, with all the correct notes.. generally simpler notes, so soloist can be the star of the show. I seldom see this idea written out, so I just HAD to say this! thanks
 
#78
It's hard to beat a classical player at technique. As a classical pianist, I spent three hours practicing six days a week, with up to an hour a day on fundamentals (major scales, minor scales, chromatics, arpeggios), a good half an hour playing Bach (which are sometimes technically harder than scales), and THEN I worked on repertoire. Most classical musicians, no matter what the instrument, follow that kind of rigorous schedule, and many started well before their teen years.

I think jazz musicians are definitely the best at improvisation these days, but you need at least some classical training to be truly good at jazz, I feel like. It's a little sad, in my mind, because all accounts state that true greats in classical music, like Beethoven or Liszt, were masters at improvisation and could conjure up fugues on the spot, which is kind of startling if you think about it.

But you know, even if you play neither classical nor jazz, I do believe that you can sound better than people trained in those disciplines because you can bring a certain set of skills that are ideal for a certain type of music. I'm not convinced that if you replace the bassist in a band like Green Day for example, that the overall effect would improve.
 
#79
honeyiscool said:
It's hard to beat a classical player at technique. As a classical pianist, I spent three hours practicing six days a week, with up to an hour a day on fundamentals (major scales, minor scales, chromatics, arpeggios), a good half an hour playing Bach (which are sometimes technically harder than scales), and THEN I worked on repertoire. Most classical musicians, no matter what the instrument, follow that kind of rigorous schedule, and many started well before their teen years.

+1


I think jazz musicians are definitely the best at improvisation these days, but you need at least some classical training to be truly good at jazz, I feel like. It's a little sad, in my mind, because all accounts state that true greats in classical music, like Beethoven or Liszt, were masters at improvisation and could conjure up fugues on the spot, which is kind of startling if you think about it.
+1 +1 +1 +1 on Bach Beethoven and their likely unparalleled ability to improvise a fugue... unreal.


But you know, even if you play neither classical nor jazz, I do believe that you can sound better than people trained in those disciplines because you can bring a certain set of skills that are ideal for a certain type of music. I'm not convinced that if you replace the bassist in a band like Green Day for example, that the overall effect would improve.
Click to expand...

I am out of my element here.. I do not know Green Day ( only Green Bay !)
I do believe very little theory is needed for certain styles of music, likely very rhythmic music. Theory does not emphasize rhythmic acumen very much. and some music is mainly about rhythm.
 
#80
Well I think most people's idea of classical music kind of ends at Mozart and Beethoven, and by that time, composers had really only explored melody, counterpoint, and were just starting to study dynamics. Once you get into Debussy and Stravinsky, you have the extreme focus on tone, color, and rhythm.



You need excellent rhythmic feel to be able to do even a convincing waltz rhythm. We're getting off topic here, though.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back