Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter longfinger
- Start date
Groove Master
Commercial User
- Apr 22, 2011
- 1,808
- 1,291
- Disclosures
- Author of Groove 101, Slap 101 and Technique 101
.....or may be the other side doesn't have ears which would explain a lot of the stubberness here. Music is the art of listenning isn't it?
I totally understand your frustration here, don't bother bro'.
It really amazes me how polarized people are on this particular subject. Theory is simply the study of music. Either study it, or don't. I study theory because it interests me. If it didn't interest me I wouldn't study it.
Watching people argue about it is like watching two kids push each other around on the playground. It serves no purpose and they both walk away unhappy.
Watching people argue about it is like watching two kids push each other around on the playground. It serves no purpose and they both walk away unhappy.
Exactly!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
When you drive a car, do you know which pedal is which or do you go by feel? Do you know what everything stands for on the PRNDL or did you just guess until you got it right? I think those are more apt comparisons to music theory than fixing a car. A more apt comparison to fixing a car would be fixing a bass or amp.
But like I said before, if you can figure it all out without knowing theory, then count your blessings because not a lot of people can do it, and those who can are flukes in comparison to the rest of the population.
If bassists or guitarists did not know any theory, they would not be able to tune their instruments to play. Knowing that the open strings are normally tuned as E A D G (B) (E) means knowing some theory. Wait, what's E? And why does it start with E? How come the open strings do not start on A and go B, C, D, (E), (F) ? Well there are notes "in between" the open strings, here listen... And so it goes. We learn about notes and scales and more.
Going back to a bassist who did not know any theory (we have all been at that point when we first started to play), he/she would take the instrument out of the gig bag and start doing finger patterns on the neck and wonder "what's going on, why does it sound different?
"
Friend will say, "it's out of tune, the pegs got turned in the bag".
"What do I do?"
"Tune the bass."
"What's that mean? How?"
"Umm. here, I'll tune it for you."
after tuning..
"Yaay my finger patterns work now.
"
Without any theory we would no even know what a D and G is, all we'd know is "2nd fattest string pressed behind the 5th metal bar, with 3rd fattest string pressed behind the 7th metal bar." All we could do is finger patterns on the neck, that somebody else tuned for us in a standard way.
To be a player, one needs to know some rudiments. Finger patterns alone can't do that. (vocalist on the other hand...
Even drummers and singers need to know rudiments of pulse, meter, and form to play with other people)
After the rudiments though, it really depends on what our goals are. For me, theory is the short cut that's needed to go through centuries of accumulated musical knowledge by countless musicians, in the short span of a lifetime. If one were to focus exclusively on a small genre of music and go through thousands of actual pieces in the genre with no short cuts, then we could do it over many years with only the basic theory. But people with a good theory + ear training (the ability to hear music theory) can choose some representative samples of the thousands, say 50 tunes, learn those inside out, and then fake the rest by extrapolating rules from the 50 to cover the other tunes. Going about actually learning tunes 51-100 would be faster too, as we'd be in the position of "these are similar to what I've already learned."
A, "Well what did you already learn?"
B, "Tunes 1-50 have these properties. Tune 51 is similar to tunes 2, 15, 26 and 43."
A, "In what way?"
B, Explains it... using some kind of music theory. Whether standardized or self made.
Going back to a bassist who did not know any theory (we have all been at that point when we first started to play), he/she would take the instrument out of the gig bag and start doing finger patterns on the neck and wonder "what's going on, why does it sound different?
"Friend will say, "it's out of tune, the pegs got turned in the bag".
"What do I do?"
"Tune the bass."
"What's that mean? How?"
"Umm. here, I'll tune it for you."
after tuning..
"Yaay my finger patterns work now.
"Without any theory we would no even know what a D and G is, all we'd know is "2nd fattest string pressed behind the 5th metal bar, with 3rd fattest string pressed behind the 7th metal bar." All we could do is finger patterns on the neck, that somebody else tuned for us in a standard way.
To be a player, one needs to know some rudiments. Finger patterns alone can't do that. (vocalist on the other hand...
Even drummers and singers need to know rudiments of pulse, meter, and form to play with other people)After the rudiments though, it really depends on what our goals are. For me, theory is the short cut that's needed to go through centuries of accumulated musical knowledge by countless musicians, in the short span of a lifetime. If one were to focus exclusively on a small genre of music and go through thousands of actual pieces in the genre with no short cuts, then we could do it over many years with only the basic theory. But people with a good theory + ear training (the ability to hear music theory) can choose some representative samples of the thousands, say 50 tunes, learn those inside out, and then fake the rest by extrapolating rules from the 50 to cover the other tunes. Going about actually learning tunes 51-100 would be faster too, as we'd be in the position of "these are similar to what I've already learned."
A, "Well what did you already learn?"
B, "Tunes 1-50 have these properties. Tune 51 is similar to tunes 2, 15, 26 and 43."
A, "In what way?"
B, Explains it... using some kind of music theory. Whether standardized or self made.
One last try, ya'll. The musical sounds we hear interact in ways which we find pleasing or unpleasing. Even if all we do is just listen, we will begin to recognize certain things about it. Sometimes, we may hear someting in one song that sounds like something we heard in another song. When we begin to learn to play an instrument we first use some "mechanics" to learn how to tune it. That, in itself was developed years ago, but we generally still use their method. They also devlepoped names for the notes which we also use. This is music theory, or "mechanics," if you will. Beyond that we may learn to play our instrument purely by listening to music and picking parts out, or we may make up our own parts. Let's say we play the open fourth string, then the same string on the third fret, and again on the fifth fret. We say, "I like that." Like what? "That." Ok, so there's something we like, and we can recreate it because we remember what it looked like and how long we held the notes. That's our "theory." Our "mechanics" of how "That" works. If we tell someone about it, we tell them that we can show them, unless we want to explain it. (Hendrix did it when he would show someone how to play something). Without the vision of it in our mind and the resulting sound we have no way to describe "That." The fact that "That" has a shape and sound demonstrates what it is. It can be described. So, the "theory" is there, only we use what terms we choose to relate it to someone else. But the bottom line truth is---it has a shape and sound. That shape and sound is the theory of it. If we learn other terms for it, terms that have been used for centuries, and use those instead, then we will be able to discuss "That" with many other musicians.
Some say, however, that they don't care that "That" has any basis in theory. But actually, they do care, because the very fact that they like or dislike it has to first point to what it is, by whatever terms one chooses to use. If it is beyond any description, even by just hearing it, then the instrument simply sits idle, and no music is played at all.
With all due respect, my friends, all I am saying is that music has "ways." If we just play by ear, or if we think of terms and analyze it, no matter. The mechanics of the music are still at work. When we play by ear only we are still in touch with those mechanics and become familiar with them by sound. We use that familiarity to help us play even more music, and to notice similarities between songs. Remember, I said I learned by ear first. Just because I learned the standard terms for what I was doing later, I do not forget what those things were in my mind. If we each stop and think about it, we can easily see that all our music has some form of vision in our minds, whether by ear or otherwise.
The study of music "theory" is not snake oil, nor does it stifle creativity, nor does it stifle emotion, nor does it do anything other than show how things work together. It will not make a poor musician play better, but the knowledge of it may help one progress faster, depending on the individual. It is simply knowledge. No on is inferior for not knowing the standard way of discussing it. But, that same person should understand that what they know by ear is THE SAME THING! If we all played Chinese music, our ears would know it in a different way. Or, using standard terms, we can explain the differences, if we like. My main point here is to help all ear players understand that the mechanics of music are there working for them just as they are for those who have studied the terms for it all.
Please, I don't know how to say it any better. And please, ya'll, let's get off bashing one another. It should all be interesting, not something to fight about.
Some say, however, that they don't care that "That" has any basis in theory. But actually, they do care, because the very fact that they like or dislike it has to first point to what it is, by whatever terms one chooses to use. If it is beyond any description, even by just hearing it, then the instrument simply sits idle, and no music is played at all.
With all due respect, my friends, all I am saying is that music has "ways." If we just play by ear, or if we think of terms and analyze it, no matter. The mechanics of the music are still at work. When we play by ear only we are still in touch with those mechanics and become familiar with them by sound. We use that familiarity to help us play even more music, and to notice similarities between songs. Remember, I said I learned by ear first. Just because I learned the standard terms for what I was doing later, I do not forget what those things were in my mind. If we each stop and think about it, we can easily see that all our music has some form of vision in our minds, whether by ear or otherwise.
The study of music "theory" is not snake oil, nor does it stifle creativity, nor does it stifle emotion, nor does it do anything other than show how things work together. It will not make a poor musician play better, but the knowledge of it may help one progress faster, depending on the individual. It is simply knowledge. No on is inferior for not knowing the standard way of discussing it. But, that same person should understand that what they know by ear is THE SAME THING! If we all played Chinese music, our ears would know it in a different way. Or, using standard terms, we can explain the differences, if we like. My main point here is to help all ear players understand that the mechanics of music are there working for them just as they are for those who have studied the terms for it all.
Please, I don't know how to say it any better. And please, ya'll, let's get off bashing one another. It should all be interesting, not something to fight about.
If bassists or guitarists did not know any theory, they would not be able to tune their instruments to play. Knowing that the open strings are normally tuned as E A D G (B) (E) means knowing some theory. Wait, what's E? And why does it start with E? How come the open strings do not start on A and go B, C, D, (E), (F) ? Well there are notes "in between" the open strings, here listen... And so it goes. We learn about notes and scales and more.
Going back to a bassist who did not know any theory (we have all been at that point when we first started to play), he/she would take the instrument out of the gig bag and start doing finger patterns on the neck and wonder "what's going on, why does it sound different?
Friend will say, "it's out of tune, the pegs got turned in the bag".
"What do I do?"
"Tune the bass."
"What's that mean? How?"
"Umm. here, I'll tune it for you."
after tuning..
"Yaay my finger patterns work now.
Without any theory we would no even know what a D and G is, all we'd know is "2nd fattest string pressed behind the 5th metal bar, with 3rd fattest string pressed behind the 7th metal bar." All we could do is finger patterns on the neck, that somebody else tuned for us in a standard way.
To be a player, one needs to know some rudiments. Finger patterns alone can't do that. (vocalist on the other hand...
After the rudiments though, it really depends on what our goals are. For me, theory is the short cut that's needed to go through centuries of accumulated musical knowledge by countless musicians, in the short span of a lifetime. If one were to focus exclusively on a small genre of music and go through thousands of actual pieces in the genre with no short cuts, then we could do it over many years with only the basic theory. But people with a good theory + ear training (the ability to hear music theory) can choose some representative samples of the thousands, say 50 tunes, learn those inside out, and then fake the rest by extrapolating rules from the 50 to cover the other tunes. Going about actually learning tunes 51-100 would be faster too, as we'd be in the position of "these are similar to what I've already learned."
A, "Well what did you already learn?"
B, "Tunes 1-50 have these properties. Tune 51 is similar to tunes 2, 15, 26 and 43."
A, "In what way?"
B, Explains it... using some kind of music theory. Whether standardized or self made.
Well said, pal.
Lemme just add that my music has enriched my life tremendously, even though I know "theory." And my music is worth more to me than any dollar amount I could possibly put on it. I've made plenty with it, but after that it's still my music and it continues to enrich my life.
