Is music theory important?

[Lownote38]

Amaj9 A9 | Bm7(b5)/F Fdim | Gdim* Bbm/A A9 | Bm7(b5)/F Fdim |

(*I would write the C# in this chord as a Db)



I think that "my aural skills said so" is a perfectly valid answer to the question "why is it OK to play this note here?" But if you're looking for some theoretical justification of why the A works under those chords, I would say it is functioning as a pedal point.



That question is impossible to answer as presented, because you have provided a single measure without any context for what else is happening in the song and in the harmony. Given the way you stated the question, the best answer is, "it depends" -- it depends on the desired sound and what else is going on in the arrangement in this measure. In each measure here, you have a Cmin7 followed by an Emin11. Playing an Ab in the bass under the Cmin7 will make it an Abmaj9. Each of the four choices presented for the Emin11 will have a different sound. Which of those sounds do you want? That's what the bass should play.

With that said, if I were looking solely at the way the chord in the top staff is voiced and selecting a bass note without any other context, my first choice would be an E.

Now what exactly is the point of this exercise?

Having a degree in music, this is the exact answer I came up with as well. It's all about how the chord functions and stacks up.

 

[topo morto]

1. Could you, please, write down the chords for the guitar player from Part 1 and Part 2?
2. Could you, please, explain to me why it is OK for the bass guitar (My aural skills said so) to play an ostinato figure on note A in Part 1 (Bar 1 through Bar 4)?
My guitar player disagrees with me; therefore, I need some support.
3. I got stuck in Part 2 because I could not figure out what note the bass should play; therefore, I wrote several variations.
What note should the bass guitar play and why in Part 2?

Well I was beaten to it I guess

1) Looks like there's an answer already. I don't like standard notation, don't use it a lot and it would have taken me a minute or two to figure them out.

2) If your guitar player doesn't like the sound of something, there's little you can say from an academic or theoretical point of view to counteract it. You can say it's a pedal point, he can just come back and say that using a pedal there doesn't sound good.

3) Happy to go with Febs answer again! Even before I read his answer I would say the same - 'it depends', context, etc.

 

[Lownote38]

If you want to be a worthwhile and innovative composer, you don't need to learn any one "Music Theory" - you need to be able to create your own ways to consider music, otherwise you will be trapped in the wheel ruts of the past.

If you just want to be a basic cookie-cutter rockstar though, then yes - you should learn music theory. It is the perfect tool to help you copy all those old songs but change them a bit so you don't get sued.

You've got it backwards. You have to know the rules in order to break them. Therefore, I learned theory in college, and even if I stay in those lines, it is anything but cookie cutter. It certainly isn't rock. I wouldn't be able to write extremely complex music had I not learned theory first. It broadens your ear.
Plus, you can only get sued for copying a melody line or lyrics. The chords don't matter and aren't copyrightable.

 

[topo morto]

My point is very simple:

I just wanted to show some musicians, even the talented ones, how difficult it is to be illiterate around music.

By illiterate, you mean not being comfortable with SN?

being around music suggests a huge range of different things to me, many of which would be impossible to get by in without SN, some where it would be somewhat useful, and some where it would not be the tool for any job that needs doing.

Look at this thread. There are so many views and comments about NOTHING.

Look at the time wasted talking about NOTHING.

AND NOTHING LEARNED.

That's it.

Glad I haven't read it then. I've read many others - assume they are mostly the same.

 

[topo morto]

You've got it backwards. You have to know the rules in order to break them. Therefore, I learned theory in college, and even if I stay in those lines, it is anything but cookie cutter. It certainly isn't rock. I wouldn't be able to write extremely complex music had I not learned theory first. It broadens your ear.

Aw, music theory doesn't get you stuck in the past. It simply shows you what's been done so you can intelligently choose you own way.

Broadly agree with both of these. by all means take what has come before and build on it, subvert it, fill in the gaps, or purposely avoid it take things in another direction entirely.

What's sad to me is when build a cage for themselves out of theory - have met quite a few people who are incredibly capable within the bounds of what the theory they've learned can describe, but can't deal well with anything that falls outside.

I'm a bit anti-theory sometimes because I had a couple of stupid music teachers who fell into that category, and I was too stupid to see them for what they were.

 

[Marial]

Is music theory important? Yes, I'd say so. Is it absolutely required? I'd say no, with the caveat that it's certainly beneficial. I sure wish I'd learned theory at a young age instead of waiting until now.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Having a degree in music...

...I highly recommend to learn music theory.
No but, no maybe.

 

[maxiegrant]

Music theory is a great way to organize what you're doing. Some musicians have no need of it because they are already thinking on it in different ways. I was told that Steve Howe, for example, has no musical theory or training whatsoever. But he does the most insanely complex things right out of his head. If you can do that, you probably don't need theory.

However, if you're not Steve Howe, you should probably try to familiarize yourself with it. I don't read music as part of what I do as a musician, but I have recently learned to notate with TuxGuitar, and putting the music on paper has really helped clarify what I'm thinking when I record demos.

Bottom line: don't ever turn away learning if you have it at your door. Music is an intellectual creation, and it requires intellect to master.

 

[Russell L]

I remember one night beating my head against the wall trying to explain how to play a song to a guitarist who doesn't know any theory at all. A good example is when I said, "OK, right there it's F#m7." And he said, "Oh, uh, lemme see, where's that?" I just stepped around behind him and put my hand on the guitar neck and showed him. "There, it's like that." The guy can play, though, and sounds great on blues, but trying to learn stuff with him is a pain. I told him that he could really go somewhere if he'd learn some basic theory. Otherwise, he'll be mostly stuck in a blues jam band. He has a good ear, good chops, and terrific articulation. He just needs to know what he's doing.

 

[dkelley]

Steve Howe reads music quite well though. He doesn't do it often enough to sight read well, but he can work through it just fine. He doesn't have a lot of advanced theory but still the basic classical training and theory he possesses is vastly better than the complete lack of theory most guitarists have.

I talked about it with Steve Howe very briefly many years ago and my then band's guitarist (r.I.p.) went into some deep discussions with him about it.

 

[topo morto]

If you want to play with a band you should at least know the names of notes and chords. Not tough.

If you want to work with session/orchestral musicians then you need to know standard notation. Not tough conceptually but takes a while to get good at, so you have to think of the cost/benefit for your own situation. I always feel sorry for people who think you can't know much about music if you don't know standard notation - as if that's the only mental model for music they have.

 

[ecj_bass]

Is music theory important? Does a bear s*** in the woods?

 

[topo morto]

Does a bear s*** in the woods?

Not all of them, no.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Not all of them, no.

Sometimes they ..... in their zoo cages.

 

[topo morto]

I was more thinking of polar bears

 

[mellowinman]

At least you guys mentioned bears. Not like SOME threads...

 

[JimmyM]

Broadly agree with both of these. by all means take what has come before and build on it, subvert it, fill in the gaps, or purposely avoid it take things in another direction entirely.

What's sad to me is when build a cage for themselves out of theory - have met quite a few people who are incredibly capable within the bounds of what the theory they've learned can describe, but can't deal well with anything that falls outside.

I'm a bit anti-theory sometimes because I had a couple of stupid music teachers who fell into that category, and I was too stupid to see them for what they were.

Chances are that if these people had no theory, they wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING with music at all.

 

[jblmusic1994]

I don't exactly agree with having to know the rules before you break them. Not saying I'm against learning the rules, because I've been studying theory for quite some time. (Classical and jazz)

I believe John Cage has a quote about creation and then analyzation. Which I find used doing often. I will write something, just messing around. It will sound good, then I give it a theoretical justification to continue the piece or add to it.

Even a lot of times when rules are being "broken", they are actually just other rules that came along later in the overall study of music.

 

[topo morto]

Chances are that if these people had no theory, they wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING with music at all.

Hmm, I wonder!

 

[Endzeit96]

In a word, yes

Its not essential for writing a good song, in the same way that you can take a good photo without knowing about shutter speeds and exposure, but if you want to nail it every time, it helps to know how

Also the theory of rythm i think is essential, you can just pick it up as you go rather than learn it in a class room but if you wanna play anything other than 4/4 (or even that) youre using rythm theory