• 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.

Is music theory important?

#221
Whousedtoplay said:
The truth - something sounds good - is in the ear of the beholder.
If that beholder is your group's leader, you can either try to diplomatically offer your version of "stuff", or just get fired/leave on your own if you disagree with the leader's opinion.

We don't even need to talk about any new "stuff" - CREATION OF SOMETHING NEW.

In the separate thread, http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f30/stanley-clarke-plays-under-bridge-red-hot-chili-peppers-1008594/

I've posted a video with the Grand Multitalented Master, Stanley Clarke and "fire-throwing-volcanic" Hiromi playing "Under the Bridge" - RHCP.
Some of the comments were, "elevator music", "k-mart radio", etc... (I've never thought I could hear that kind of reaction from anybody who is/wanna be a musician.)

Some agreed that the musicians were good but "they butchered" the song.

One more time, the truth is in the EAR of the beholder.


If you are hired to play written notes/chords, you should follow the rules. If you are hired to create something new, than IT DEPENDS on many other factors.
Click to expand...

They did butcher the song. :D

I don't get hired. I'm one of those original music guys that takes more joy in writing my own music than playing other people's & every once in a while I get to play that music in front of people.

In 23 years of playing I've been in one band that had a "leader" and it didn't last long. I've never been in a band (except the one) where someone came to practice with a full song written. Usually it's "I came up with this part, what do you think?" and we go from there & sometimes make a song out of it. Other times we'll press record and start jamming (jamming is where theory comes in real handy). Anyway, I've said enough.
 
#222
I agree with the above. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Jaco Pastorius and Miles Davis both new theory, but they were able to "step outside" with great success.

Also, I've used my knowledge of theory to know what "correct" notes NOT to play. As an example, I was trying to come up with a synth part for a song, that already had a full hook that just needed something extra to push it into the realm of being tasteful and catchy. Had I not known my theory, I may have settled on a typical root/third/fifth chord. Having the understanding of theory that I do, I realized that any of these notes would just add another layer of sound, but nothing harmonically interesting. I decided to skip these notes and try something different.

It's possible that a player not knowing theory might have tried the root/third/fifth route and found it uninteresting and moved on, but it's also possible that they would have tried it and settled on it as it sounded "right". My point is, knowing theory, I was able to skip this step and move on to a more interesting voicing.

There's really no such thing as too much information, just make sure you handle it appropriately.
 
#223
As to "rules," theory CAN be rules in that in order to sound like a certain style you have to do certain things, like my example of no parallel 4ths and 5ths in 18th-century classical, for instance. But, other styles break THOSE particular rules in order to have the particular sound that THEY have.

Theory can tell you what and what not to do.
 
#224
zachoff said:
They did butcher the song. :D
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that we both established one very important rule that,
"The truth is in the EAR of the beholder."
and that all musicians, like those stars in the sky could coexist together.

zachoff said:
I don't get hired.
Click to expand...

You either work for somebody, like "poor" Nathan East or Leland Bruce "Lee" Sklar,
or
work for yourself.

If you, a musician, can work for yourself and make a living - WOW!

zachoff said:
I'm one of those original music guys that takes more joy in writing my own music
Click to expand...

Which means that your should know some music theory.



zachoff said:
In 23 years of playing I've been in one band that had a "leader" and it didn't last long.
Click to expand...

Usually it means, the "leader" is fake, bogus, etc...


zachoff said:
I've never been in a band (except the one) where someone came to practice with a full song written. Usually it's "I came up with this part, what do you think?" and we go from there & sometimes make a song out of it.
Click to expand...

It's only my personal opinion but a strong one:

I have something against a wide-spread method when "different musicians are coming up with different "what-do-you-think" parts of a song.

I've learned for myself that the best thing is to bring a whole song - it could be a very raw product - and with other band musicians' help refine it.


Russell L said:
...other styles break THOSE particular rules in order to have the particular sound that THEY have.

Theory can tell you what and what not to do.
Click to expand...

I agree with your statement, which is
"in order to break the rules, you need to know those rules."
 
#225
Whousedtoplay said:
I agree with your statement, which is
"in order to break the rules, you need to know those rules."
Click to expand...

No way, man... You can totally break rules without knowing them. Ignorance is bliss, right? You might not know which rule(s) you're breaking, but you can break them, nonetheless. Besides... Theory is more of a set of guidelines than rules, anyway. With creativity, there are no rules. ;)
 
#228
Russell L said:
As to "rules," theory CAN be rules in that in order to sound like a certain style you have to do certain things, like my example of no parallel 4ths and 5ths in 18th-century classical, for instance. But, other styles break THOSE particular rules in order to have the particular sound that THEY have.

Theory can tell you what and what not to do.
Click to expand...

IF... you want to sound like the theory involved with the music it defines.

In other words, parallel 4th's and 5th's weren't avoided because of a rule, they were avoided because when you use them, they become one sound and the texture of the voices is compromised. So.... the composers (like Bach) who wanted to express a certain texture didn't use parallel 4th's and 5th's because they didn't fit the style and sound they wanted. The theory rules came AFTER the music was composed.
 
#229
If you think you need to know music theory to break rules you're delusional ... no one break any rules right now, every thing we play, as an explaination, you just haven't been deep enough to find the answers.
 
#231
By rules I mean guidlines, road map, idea, whatever you wanna call it. If you wanna sound like 18th-century classical, do THIS and don't do THAT. If you wanna sound like 1920s blues, do THIS and don't do THAT. It's something to go by. Does 1920s blues break the "rules" of 18th-century classical. Yes, of course. How about Stravinsky? Yes again. Did Stravinsky know what to do and not do? You bet.
 
#232
Here's my theory about theory. In theory studying theory will help you when you need to theorize what you are doing in practice. But to apply theory to practice you really need to practice your theory. With enough practice you no longer need theory to practice your craft. Practical theory can then be applied theoretically to your practice of theory in a practical theoretical way. In theory anyway.
 
#233
Itzayana said:
Here's my theory about theory. In theory studying theory will help you when you need to theorize what you are doing in practice. But to apply theory to practice you really need to practice your theory. With enough practice you no longer need theory to practice your craft. Practical theory can then be applied theoretically to your practice of theory in a practical theoretical way. In theory anyway.
Click to expand...

In reality this is metaphorically, so hypothetically if I take you literally my answer is.... yes.
 
#235
I'd just noticed how easily we could switch from a question about music theory to child psychology; therefore, I'll try to use some other people's statements why musicians (not groupies) do need to learn music theory.

It probably could irritate some non-lovers of music theory.
So be it.

Music Theory for the Music Professional by Richard Sorce
http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Sorce/e/B001K7XP5Y

"The rules employed in composition and harmony have become rules because they were, and still are, the practice of all successful composers.

(Is a bass player composing bassline/counterpoint or just noodling?)

“Breaking the rules” is a widely used phrase—one which is often uttered by novice musicians with hardly enough experience and training to speak with any authority.

Too many “artists” are ready to break the rules without first learning the principles of their art as best they can.

In this high-tech society, many have come to expect results with minimal effort.

This is witnessed in theory, composition, and other types of music courses; students want to score, arrange, and compose “great” music before they learn how to connect two chords properly!

This enthusiasm is indeed beneficial, but one must crawl before one can walk. Perhaps with the aid of sophisticated synthesizers and computers one is able to impress others with one’s creations; but it is highly doubtful that one could conceive, develop, and present a worthy piece of art without mastering the basic techniques of composition.

Years of formal study will not guarantee the success of any creative work if the artist does not possess the necessary creative spirit.

However, formal education in music does guarantee exposure to the multitude of styles, practices, and procedures that have developed throughout the history of composition, and thus will prepare the student musician to function competently in several facets of the music profession.

Curiously, a significant proportion of musicians do not listen attentively; indeed, some musicians possess a “hearing” ear while others possess a “listening” ear. For the truly serious musician enough musical “information” is available daily to whet the appetite of the “listening” ear. Simply hearing music is not enough for the music professional; the professional must listen, listen carefully, listen theoretically, and listen critically."
 
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
#236
interp said:
In essence, the OP's question is: which is better, knowledge or lack of knowledge?

The fact that this question is even asked is a sad commentary on the dumbing down of America
Click to expand...

:hyper:

Whether it's theory, sight reading, etc. I can understand someone making an argument that in some contexts, certain knowledge isn't required. But what drives me crazy is when ignorant people try to argue that their ignorance is actually a virtue (e.g., whenever someone argues that learning theory will make them less original or creative). Only ignorant people ever argue that, but the simple fact that they are ignorant means they don't have the basis to know one way or the other.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back