Music Theory under rated

[Slowgypsy]

It's kind of hard to believe that there are still folks around who actually think that not knowing something will somehow magically make you a better musician.

Actually, just speaking for myself (and I do know music theory), knowing music theory will not magically make you a better musician. Becoming a musician is the sum of many parts. Knowledge of music theory is certainly a valid part, but not a magic bullet by any means. Although the simple act of learning to play an instrument... any instrument... requires learning some music theory... just perhaps not the type that requires formal classroom training.

There is a middle ground. Both camps have valid points.

 

[bassbully]

It's kind of hard to believe that there are still folks around who actually think that not knowing something will somehow magically make you a better musician.

Who's saying that? There are those myself included, that say knowing theory is not needed to be a good musician or player, but will agree it can possibly help. Any training or continuing education is important in anything you do.

The thing is it is not needed and for those who want to expand and add it ...go for it. It's just there are those here who damn others, call them lazy or almost stupid for not wanting to further their musical eduction. Some just prefer to practice the instrument and play their way and thats cool too. Flag wavers just need to understand this and let it be.

 

[lucas vigor]

I generally avoid these kind of threads, but I like the way you are seeing and defining 'music theory'. I have two music degrees and, in doing such a thing, I've studied a great deal of music theory and use it quite a bit in playing bass, composing and arranging. However.... I have performed and continue to perform in several groups in which many of the members would claim then "don't know much (or any) music theory". Some don't read music.

I enjoy very much watching and listening to these so-called uneducated musicians and I'm often very impressed with the way they've constructed their own 'music theory'. Many of them could not really articulate how the elements of music work, yet they understand them very, very well in their own way. They know what notes work best together, what chords are needed for different styles. Often times their power of observation is keener than musicians who have studied a broad scope of music. They memorize quickly and hear very well. And.. most important, they understand how sounds and rhythm work together.

The upshot of all this is.... I don't believe them when they say they 'don't know music theory'. They do. They just don't know what Walter Piston has to say, or could do Hanson or Schenker analysis. So what? I guess the means they won't be teaching in a university soon. But... they are able to deal with the music they have at hand, and they DO know music theory.

Wow! This might be a first for TB....someone mentioning Walter Piston and Howard Hanson in the same thread! (Two composers I like a LOT!)

 

[projectMalamute]

Who's saying that? There are those myself included, that say knowing theory is not needed to be a good musician or player, but will agree it can possibly help. Any training or continuing education is important in anything you do.

right here:

If a person is so in tune with their cultures adaptation of how music should flow, this "band" would be impossible if everyone knew their own cultures theory.

 

[GeoffT]

Flag wavers just need to understand this and let it be.

You're not waving your flag just as hard?

 

[bassbully]

You're not waving your flag just as hard?

No, I was bored, came in to poke fun at the wavers from time to time..You?

 

[Spino]

I think theory is a good basis for musical exploration,composition,and excellence but the autodidact has also got his place in modern music and it's myriad genres and can equally be considered as innovative ,in all respects ? Innit!

 

[Russell L]

Worked for Hendrix

Eh, almost a good point. But, all players know some theory, whether they realize it or not. They might not have the same names for it, but it's there nonetheless. Otherwise, none of us would be able to play at all. No, not one. I was playing at the age of eight because I knew SOMETHING. It's all theory.

 

[bassbully]

Eh, almost a good point. But, all players know some theory, whether they realize it or not. They might not have the same names for it, but it's there nonetheless. Otherwise, none of us would be able to play at all. No, not one. I was playing at the age of eight because I knew SOMETHING. It's all theory.

I read an interview were they asked Billy Cox how Hendrix communicated with them musically he said "Man he just played showed us where he was at (hands) there was no naming chords we were just jammin. My 2 fav guitarists of all time knew no theory to speak it at least Hendrix and SRV.
I agree we all know some theory in order to play it just some prefer not to make it a point to study it outright and make it known to others.
I am finding out I know more than I thought I did and I have never had a lesson one. To me a person who knows musical theory should be able to sight read and know all the musical vocab...this will never be me. I feel the actual part... playing, is not theory BTW. Playing the bass is the practical/relative part IMO .Theory is just that.

 

[JimmyM]

Separating theory and playing doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Unless your music is all about total out-of-time dissonance, then all music is an application of the theory behind it, whether you know the nuts and bolts of it or not.

And if you are a musician who has managed to excel without knowing any theory behind it, congratulations, because you're one of the few. There are a lot more who don't know theory and never figure out anything about playing music and give it up. I know for a fact that if I didn't know it, I wouldn't be able to play.

 

[Russell L]

Separating theory and playing doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Unless your music is all about total out-of-time dissonance, then all music is an application of the theory behind it, whether you know the nuts and bolts of it or not.

And if you are a musician who has managed to excel without knowing any theory behind it, congratulations, because you're one of the few. There are a lot more who don't know theory and never figure out anything about playing music and give it up. I know for a fact that if I didn't know it, I wouldn't be able to play.

Thank you.

 

[superbassman2000]

And if you are a musician who has managed to excel without knowing any theory behind it, congratulations, because you're one of the few. There are a lot more who don't know theory and never figure out anything about playing music and give it up. I know for a fact that if I didn't know it, I wouldn't be able to play.

I understand what you are saying but at the same time, I can drive a car without understanding how it works. Granted, if it breaks down I am screwed, but to me its the same with music. You don't have to know that D is a perfect fifth of G in order for them to sound good together. You just have to know that they sound good together. I am not saying that theory is completely useless in musical terms, but I don't think you need to completely understand all of the theory behind what you are doing to make good music.

 

[Russell L]

I understand what you are saying but at the same time, I can drive a car without understanding how it works. Granted, if it breaks down I am screwed, but to me its the same with music. You don't have to know that D is a perfect fifth of G in order for them to sound good together. You just have to know that they sound good together. I am not saying that theory is completely useless in musical terms, but I don't think you need to completely understand all of the theory behind what you are doing to make good music.

I think the point is that you know, for instance, that D works as the fifth of G, only you don't know to call it that. But, you DO know that sound and how it fits in. That's what I mean by saying that you know SOMETHING. And that SOMETHING is based in theory. If you didn't know it, you would not be playing at all.

 

[bassbully]

I think the point is that you know, for instance, that D works as the fifth of G, only you don't know to call it that. But, you DO know that sound and how it fits in. That's what I mean by saying that you know SOMETHING. And that SOMETHING is based in theory. If you didn't know it, you would not be playing at all.

Gee everything is based on something ..right? The point is there are allot of us who couldnt tell you for our lives what we are playing but that it works and sounds good not only to us our fans ,bandmates, producers etc. If thats theory that great but we aint explaining it like some do and never will.

To me that you can play it, hear it, make it good is the power of music and the natural state of the player, their style etc.
Explaining it is where the theory comes in and the study of it to explain it all. Some of us just do not care to do that and prefer just to play and let the music talk for us.

I could care less what notes are relative other notes and all that. All i care is does it sound good? support the song and please me? That is all I care about.

 

[bassbully]

I understand what you are saying but at the same time, I can drive a car without understanding how it works. Granted, if it breaks down I am screwed, but to me its the same with music. You don't have to know that D is a perfect fifth of G in order for them to sound good together. You just have to know that they sound good together. I am not saying that theory is completely useless in musical terms, but I don't think you need to completely understand all of the theory behind what you are doing to make good music.

And Thank you!

 

[staindbass]

I think the point is that you know, for instance, that D works as the fifth of G, only you don't know to call it that. But, you DO know that sound and how it fits in. That's what I mean by saying that you know SOMETHING. And that SOMETHING is based in theory. If you didn't know it, you would not be playing at all.

oh so that means i know a form of theory. i can live with that. i was having fun being uneducated, i was not smart enough to realize i knew something

 

[Papa Dangerous]

right here:

That was taken out of context. I was "attempting to win" the fedora if you search my posts, all I ever do is talk about the benefits of theory.

 

[superbassman2000]

I think the point is that you know, for instance, that D works as the fifth of G, only you don't know to call it that. But, you DO know that sound and how it fits in. That's what I mean by saying that you know SOMETHING. And that SOMETHING is based in theory. If you didn't know it, you would not be playing at all.

I'll reference the apparent duke ellington quote "if it sounds good, it is good". That doesn't reference theory. I think if some kid pluncking around on his guitar somehow manages (without even trying) to play a G and a D at the same time and thinks that its a cool sound so they play it, they don't know the theory, but they know they like the sound. Sure, someone else can tell you why it works, and from my interpretation of what the OP said, the composer isn't concerned about why their piece sounds good, they just write it. The theory geeks explain why it sounds how it does after it's written.
I happen to agree with the OP in the statement that theory is based on past compositions, finding similar patterns and rhythms and assigning names to them. When I am playing live, I am not thinking "R-5-7, R-5-7, b5-5-8-R, R-b7-7-8"" I am typically thinking about how i need to quit this blues band lol

 

[bassbully]

oh so that means i know a form of theory. i can live with that. i was having fun being uneducated, i was not smart enough to realize i knew something

LMAO I was thinking the same thing. After all this time I do know some theory! Ummm... just dont ask me to explain any of it thou

 

[teleharmonium]

I happen to agree with the OP in the statement that theory is based on past compositions, finding similar patterns and rhythms and assigning names to them. When I am playing live, I am not thinking "R-5-7, R-5-7, b5-5-8-R, R-b7-7-8"" I am typically thinking about how i need to quit this blues band lol

The thing about that is that the "theory geek" (btw what term shall we use to negatively define players that aren't into theory ? suggestions welcome, we can pick the best one) is less likely to be thinking about things like fingering positions, or intervals, when playing. Not more.

Dealing with music theory helps liberate you musically, both in terms of how you can think or not think about music, and in what you can play.

I don't know why the guys that are against it imagine it's the other way around. It's not like they would know, right ?

Players that have put in lots of work on music theory (and application !) can remember what it is like before they did that, so they've actually been on both sides of the fence. Guys that haven't done this cannot know what it's like to play music with that knowledge in their minds, so let's not pretend that both sides of this debate understand each other on equal terms out of a misguided attempt at objectivity.

One side has direct experience with both approaches, the other side knows one approach and is imagining the other in a way that supports their point of view.