• 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.

Music Theory under rated

#21
ToddC said:
Music theory is a sub-domain of musicology focusing on the science of music often handled within the context of time or periods of time. So doesn't the science of music touch all physical attributes of music? And if it doesn't wouldn't it be incomplete science? And aren't those physical attributes constant across all styles? The only difference being how periods and styles limit the utilization of the science of music.

Is it reasonable to mix the history of music (an ever changing dynamic), with the science of music (a constant); and call them the same; "music theory"?

I think so. Because music theory is just a view, perspective, or model of music within some context. But if you don't have a some well formed view of music you're fishing without bait.
Click to expand...

You present interesting points. Music is ever changing, but the "science" of music is pretty constant in most cases... Kinda like Dazed and Confused... I keep getting older, but high school girls stay the same.. (sorry... had to xD)

Anyways, music theory is based on what we have designated as our musical setup. If you look at a piano, we have sharps/flats and whole tones. There is a sharp/flat between each note except BC and EF. Why? I think it was partly due to making the piano an instrument that can actually be manipulated. If there was a black key between every white key.. how would anyone know where middle C is located?

Also, we have A and A# and they are noted and understood by certain amount of vibrations/ cycles per second. We understand that A(4?) is 440 cps, it really seems arbitrary. Why not 445 vibrations as A? Why do we need to tune to these certain vibrations? Why not invent a new tuning system and have 442 vibrations be called Alpha Ding Dong?

Music theory, of the western culture, is based on the idea that our notes are to be remained constant in all ranges of all instruments. A4 will be A4 on any instrument.

So yeah. Its reasonable to mix theory with history, but maybe more so that history is mixed into theory.
 
#23
Papa Dangerous said:
I find the most difficult part of a bassist, and only a bassist knowing music theory is how to incorporate it. Chord progressions use between 2 - 7 note chords. Bass tones, on any instrument, start to get muddy when you stack a lot of them low tones on top of each other.
Click to expand...

And that's a major problem. If people are trying to understand this stuff, they HAVE to get familiar with a piano. Half-assing it by trying to play complex chords on bass is total fail. And I get the feeling that some (not all) of the folks posting in this particular part of Talkbass have little to no experience with piano or voice leading or serious harmony study. Something that might be cool would be a system where in the technique and instruction forums, some peoples' posts automatically get highlighted as authorities on the subjects being discussed. I've seen this on Starcraft forums before.
 
#25
Snarf said:
And that's a major problem. If people are trying to understand this stuff, they HAVE to get familiar with a piano. Half-assing it by trying to play complex chords on bass is total fail. And I get the feeling that some (not all) of the folks posting in this particular part of Talkbass have little to no experience with piano or voice leading or serious harmony study. Something that might be cool would be a system where in the technique and instruction forums, some peoples' posts automatically get highlighted as authorities on the subjects being discussed.
Click to expand...


That would be cool system, but I personally do not have authority lol I studied a bit in college, but no degree. I have wrapped my mind around several things, and know concepts which can later build up into a better understanding, but still would have no authority. I think there are even less people on here that do not have certificate stating they are profs. of the subject. They do have a dedicated area to double bass instructors and professionals, that only those with that experience are allowed to type in.

As for the voice leading and 4 part writing of music, it is very very hard if you do not have a professor teaching you the rules. I think it takes a classroom setting because other wise you can just learn something, make a mistake, and then build off a mistake and be very wrong. I recommend a piano to everyone. They are hard at first, especially learning to sight read, but it is well worth the adventure. A person's brain actually goes through a physical change when learning piano (they tend to increase the grey matter in their brain). So, that alone suggests the difficult of left and right hand coordination.
Even so, you do not have to be an excellent piano player. Just know the notes and see how they move, this can actually be done with just sheet music.
 
#27
By studying music theory and music history, we can appreciate the great efforts of experimenting and tinkering with sounds by music makers and instrument makers over many centuries to come up with our current systems and practices.

For example: why do we in the West have 7 note diatonic scales, as opposed to 8 note diatonic scales? Why did one system fall out of favour and fade away while the other did not? Why did one system thrive in one geography and another system thrive in another geography? How did melody develop? How did counter point develop? How did harmony develop? How did tuning systems were develop? How did instruments that use these new systems develop?

The study can branch off into several sub-topics.

Even for those musicians who have very specific ways of doing what they do to make it sound right to them, but make claims of being "untrained", the music they do speaks for itself. If studied, along with the works of those who inspired them, and the works of those whom they inspired, all together the guidelines of what they are/were doing can become very clear.

As opposed the a lot of thinking from a popular thread of last year, it's clear to me that from a collective view point, the aesthetic art choices drive the abstract theory reductions and not the other way around. Sure individuals can learn theory and then make art, but these individuals are not pushing the envelop and furthering the collective knowledge of the tradition they belong too just yet. Once they make some aesthetic art choices that they may not or may not fully understand, because they are moving beyond their current understanding no matter how great it may be, then they've tossed their work into the pile of contenders for being innovative. If other people like it, pick up the baton and build upon the development so that the innovation "sticks" in the culture and lasts, then it's in the canon. People later on will analyze it and describe it in a simplified model form. If in hindsight, it was the same old stuff repacked, then that's what it was, good enjoyable stuff, but not innovative. But if in hindsight something new was done, or old stuff done in new circumstances, then the collective practice and subsequent theory will have advanced a bit because of this. Developments won't "Stick" unless players and audiences find something aesthetically pleasing about the music.

So the art process always rules, and the theory is the condensation of centuries of successful art choices made into easy to learn and share models.

Sounds like a great thing to learn if one wants to learn a craft of some quality, within a short time.
 
#28
Papa Dangerous said:
this "band" would be impossible if everyone knew their own cultures theory.
Click to expand...

This is possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in these recent debates, which is really saying something.

If you genuinely believe knowledge of one idiom makes it impossible to understand or adapt to a different idiom you have proven yourself unqualified to discuss the function or usefulness of music theory. Or anything else really.

Here's a band composed of people with backgrounds ranging from death metal to traditional Jewish music to Brazilian percussion to jazz:

Are you saying they would be a better band if no one involved had any idea what they were doing?
 
#29
projectMalamute said:
This is possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in these recent debates, which is really saying something.

If you genuinely believe knowledge of one idiom makes it impossible to understand or adapt to a different idiom you have proven yourself unqualified to discuss the function or usefulness of music theory. Or anything else really.

Here's a band composed of people with backgrounds ranging from death metal to traditional Jewish music to Brazilian percussion to jazz: John Zorn - The Dreamers Live 2010 - 1/5 - YouTube

Are you saying they would be a better band if no one involved had any idea what they were doing?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was not completely clear on what I was going for, and should not have said "impossible" but there is no need for such an outlandish and bold remarks. :rollno: Are we really that angry now?

If a person A only knows theory, based on say western culture, and goes from a theoretical only stand point. Person B only knows Middle Eastern raga, person C knows Jewish scales/modes, while the drummer, D, only knows rhythms of African culture, I imagine there could be more difficulty in them performing a piece and having relate to a single idea of how to perform music, opposed to people who have no idea about theory and just play.

Imagine it, A plays pentatonic scale while B only plays drones that make sense to him and C is playing a different mode from A. Then D, at the same time is going after a completely different groove then everyone else.

There would have to be some type of learning curve for ABC and D for them to understand each other and be able to have a jam session and know how each other is operating.

Granted, musicians should be able to hear and bounce off each other and play that way, but this thread is based on theory and speaking from a pure theoretical only stand point.

If you take people that do not focus on theory, and really just go into for what it is worth, I imagine them having an easier time making a tune without having to go to the woodshed.

So yeah, if you genuinely believe in not trying to understand something before you become asinine keyboard warrior, you have proven yourself to be a narrow minded cretin.
 
#30
Studying music theory develops a way of explaining what you hear. . .
I perform from my soul or heart. Performing theoretically or thinking about theory while performing is lifeless.
Understanding theory allows me to analyze and remember that really cool thing I did.
(but they do not happen at the same time)

Genius has been described as 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
As a professional musician, theory allows me to accomplish more while I am perspiring.
As with all things there is a balance.
 
#31
Papa Dangerous said:
Perhaps I was not completely clear on what I was going for, and should not have said "impossible" but there is no need for such an outlandish and bold remarks. :rollno: Are we really that angry now?

If a person A only knows theory, based on say western culture, and goes from a theoretical only stand point. Person B only knows Middle Eastern raga, person C knows Jewish scales/modes, while the drummer, D, only knows rhythms of African culture, I imagine there could be more difficulty in them performing a piece and having relate to a single idea of how to perform music, opposed to people who have no idea about theory and just play.

Imagine it, A plays pentatonic scale while B only plays drones that make sense to him and C is playing a different mode from A. Then D, at the same time is going after a completely different groove then everyone else.

There would have to be some type of learning curve for ABC and D for them to understand each other and be able to have a jam session and know how each other is operating.

Granted, musicians should be able to hear and bounce off each other and play that way, but this thread is based on theory and speaking from a pure theoretical only stand point.

If you take people that do not focus on theory, and really just go into for what it is worth, I imagine them having an easier time making a tune without having to go to the woodshed.

So yeah, if you genuinely believe in not trying to understand something before you become asinine keyboard warrior, you have proven yourself to be a narrow minded cretin.
Click to expand...

But even if Jewish musician play a mode we aren't familiar with, he still uses same notes as we are. So on paper, it is like english and french, we use the same alphabet in a different way.

My view after a college degree on the upright bass is that music is exactly like english/french etc. We can all speak but when we learn how to write and read ... oh a bigger world just open his door. At that point, nothing can stop you. You can learn something you never heard before, but because you can read, you can learn it. The best part for me is knowing how everything is named, so I can speak with any musician and my idea will be understand.
 
#32
Papa Dangerous said:
Perhaps I was not completely clear on what I was going for, and should not have said "impossible" but there is no need for such an outlandish and bold remarks. :rollno: Are we really that angry now?

If a person A only knows theory, based on say western culture, and goes from a theoretical only stand point. Person B only knows Middle Eastern raga, person C knows Jewish scales/modes, while the drummer, D, only knows rhythms of African culture, I imagine there could be more difficulty in them performing a piece and having relate to a single idea of how to perform music, opposed to people who have no idea about theory and just play.

Imagine it, A plays pentatonic scale while B only plays drones that make sense to him and C is playing a different mode from A. Then D, at the same time is going after a completely different groove then everyone else.

There would have to be some type of learning curve for ABC and D for them to understand each other and be able to have a jam session and know how each other is operating.

Granted, musicians should be able to hear and bounce off each other and play that way, but this thread is based on theory and speaking from a pure theoretical only stand point.

If you take people that do not focus on theory, and really just go into for what it is worth, I imagine them having an easier time making a tune without having to go to the woodshed.

So yeah, if you genuinely believe in not trying to understand something before you become asinine keyboard warrior, you have proven yourself to be a narrow minded cretin.
Click to expand...

People who have simply accepted idiomatic playing styles without ever questioning or bothering to understand what is going on are the absolute last people in the world you would want in the kind of musical situation you are describing.
 
#33
I agree with the op in music theory definitions. My jazz professor in college said something to me that changed how I view music writing. He said "write the song and then use theory to explain it". And that makes sense to me. Music exists without music theory, but theory works great to explain why it sounds the way it does. So really, to go with the recent example of the 4 musicians From different backgrounds, their individual theoretical knowledge isn't the important part in their ability to communicate musically with each other. The important ingredient is their ability to listen. Let the music analysts figure out the theory behind it later.
 
#34
Papa Dangerous said:
If a person A only knows theory, based on say western culture, and goes from a theoretical only stand point. Person B only knows Middle Eastern raga, person C knows Jewish scales/modes, while the drummer, D, only knows rhythms of African culture, I imagine there could be more difficulty in them performing a piece and having relate to a single idea of how to perform music, opposed to people who have no idea about theory and just play.
Click to expand...

That's cool, but it's a straw man argument, unless you can point to musicians who "only know theory." I suspect that such folks would be at most a tiny minority, and might not even qualify as musicians.

Theory is just the difference between hearing the structure in music, versus hearing music as an incoherent sequence of noises. If you can quickly learn the bass parts to songs, chances are that your brain has assimilated some theory, even if you can't describe it to someone else.
 
#35
I use the term Musician ...in its highest regard...most people I know simply own instruments..I have met a few individuals that are not governed by rules and or theory...that have incredible ears,emotion and a strange connection to other peoples musical centre...always blows my mind to perform with or watch these people.

Wow...that got deep!!...LOL
 
#37
I understand and agree with all the above mentioned. I was trying to find a reason as to why not knowing theory could benefit someone to "win" the alleged fedora.

Personally, I think the more you know the better and to counteract that argument I had to dig into the bare bones of a situation to create a reasonable response.

It just happened that the only reason I conjured up at first was at the extreme end of the spectrum. However, I think that the edit I did to the comment was a better argument. Regardless, I still find knowing theory to be better than not.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back