Musical Theory VS Musical Ear

[Thunderthumbs73]

Music theory helps you know what your ear is hearing.

Mark

+1. I take this to mean that music theory is a means to help you understand music, and not intended to be an end in and of itself. I am not anti-music education, however. But I also think music education does not exist solely "on the page" with formulas, modes, math, and so on.

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

But I want to know if I need to study more musical theory or just 'ear-it-out' to play him note for note.

Will learning Major Phrygians and Melodic Minor Lydian Dominants make me a better player?

Does anybody really know all those gazillians of forms?

There is lots of value in the ear training that can be gained from learning Rush "by ear". This ear training can trancend application on bass, and help you with other instruments (and vocals) as well, as your ears become better at learning and identifying intervals and so on.

To the second question, I'd say it could. But I also think "better" does not always point to more "correct" notes and adherence to the "correct" mode/scale.

To the third question, I'd say there are some people who tell you they know those forms, and they really don't, or at least not completely, or equally well, and there may even be some who DO know all those forms, and also equally well, but... ...that doesn't necessarilly make them good musicians, nor, pleasing/interesting/compelling to listen to. A particularly analytically-minded individual who has never picked up an instrument could know all the modes, and be 100% technically correct about their construction. But this doesn't mean that they know how to make music.

 

[SurferJoe46]

Is you are really interested in theory - not just short-cuts to learning pop songs, then hit your local school music store and pick up an intro to theory book. Do yourself a huge favor and study theory at a piano instead of a bass or guitar simply because the piano lays out the concept of steps in a literal linear fashion thus making the concept of 3rd, 5ths, etc... much more clear.

Learning theory is about learning music - not an instrument - so it doesn't matter what instrument you use to learn theory OTHER than the fact that piano makes it clearer than any other instrument.

As you learn the basics of theory - how scales are constructed and the various mini-constructs that are derived from these scales, you can begin to see how these things function to make music and apply your new understanding of MUSIC to your bass.

The thread started off asking about ways to understand the 'boxes' and 'patterns' of another musician in an effort to demystify what he was playing. This is not "theory" - this is short-cutting learning songs. Nothing wrong with that - it all works - but since the discussion has spun into theory and people are starting to pop more 'short-cuts' I think it's very important to keep these things in perspective. The things posted here so far, while connected to theory, are still only short-cuts.

Define your goal, SurferJoe46 - and remember, there's no right or wrong goal - no judgment - if you want to learn what Geddy's doing and you're looking for ways to understand the boxes and patterns he's using - that perfectly fine. Just don't confuse the short-cuts being offered as a good way to approach learning music theory. There really is no short-cut for that. You need to start with the basics, learn them and follow their evolution through the more complex aspects (like modes, et al.).

Learning theory in a way that is useful to you as a musician is a long path - a very worthwhile path, but a long one that has no short-cuts. Again - there's nothing wrong with using short-cuts to demystify a Rush song - but don't confuse the little theory-related things with a way to learn theory.

My day has already started and this is just a short note, but I am very interested in all I have read and of course, debunking the ideas I had from years of misinformation in the past.

"Theory" is a loaded word though, isn't it?

Let's suppose that I don't want to write music now or in the future - am I missing something then?

"Improvisation" is more interesting, and I think that comes with Jazz and Motown too, as they are both utilizing some really complex chord voicing and technique.

"Boxes" too are interesting if I could actually learn to invert them - which I think is going to the arpeggio-zone.

Perhaps I also need to tell all of my immediate desires, and also leave the door open for a Phd in Musicology later - if I last that long!

I also know that better enjoyment of the music I play (covers and somewhat limited exercises in Improvisation doing that) are my primary interest at the mo. There are technical walls all around me when I play what I do, but enjoyment to me is really doing a note-by-note redo of an existing song.

Playing above the 9th fret works for me and I recognize the notes on the frets pretty good - I can find all four Cs in the first 12 frets, so I think I am on the right road there anyway.

Actually I can do better than that - but a written test would make it hard to prove scholastically - 'feeling' the notes and just knowing where they are is a lot of fun too. That's where the 'ear' part comes in.

I also think knowing the places where I can pick up another G# that's out of the first five positions is ear candy for me and quite an accomplishment.

When I can nail an eleven fret resolve with no 'oops' notes and do it accurately, then I am at least somewhat as talented as the guy who recorded it the first time.

That's a major digression though. Sorry.

I actually want to know IT ALL - but I see that that's prolly out of my arena right now. I guess we all die with unrealized expectations though so there's no use in going all Maudlin here.

I've got a decent stage presence and rapport with the audience and I feel secure being on stage since I'm a big ham anyway. I just want that extra security blanket and conversational abilities when I am asked why I play what I did and who taught me my fingering style. I've delivered speeches before 10,000+ people a few times, so there's really no stage fright, just concerns about accuracy.

So - where I am now is laying down a good bassline and foundation for the others to use and build upon and basically lending a lot of fill for where the guitars are thin by 'octaving' a few of what I feel are weak spots in the music - it fills the hollow spots with more subliminal vibrations and just sounds fatter.

If you know "Something" by The Beatles, you know there are hollows in it and I feel justified in adding a few octaved bass notes to make it more full.

This is the type of freedom I want to achieve by knowing more of the theory I feel.

Now I will go to GC with another friend in a couple of minutes and I'll look there for a fundamental book - er, Primer - if you will - and try to make everyone think I'm buying it for a grandchild.

I shouldda been there many years ago - <sigh>

 

[lomo]

Not theory OR ear. Why choose between food and drink?

 

[tZer]

A particularly analytically-minded individual who has never picked up an instrument could know all the modes, and be 100% technically correct about their construction. But this doesn't mean that they know how to make music.

(not arguing with you - but I wanted to use this point to expand on something)

Often times one is simply not inspired or can't find "that magic thing" that allows them to 'channel' music naively or organically. They are pretty much snookered at that point if they rely on nothing but raw instinct and inspiration to create music. While they may create great music in their zone and on their terms, out of their zone and out of their terms they are more often than not unhappy and unable to produce.

On the other hand, if they have a working knowledge of music theory, they have access to a toolkit of tried and true methods known to result in music. They don't have to count on "being in the mood" or "divine intervention" to be able to create real, musical music. They can simply apply some simple, known to work methods - framing out a basic set of changes known to provide good musical flow and resolution - decide to explore a particular mode based on it's unique qualities created by the intervals therein - insert alterations to such constructs known to add 'interest' or 'tension' - and arrive at the beginnings of solid music that can easily be expanded upon or create inspiration.

In other words, they can define the type of song, mood and other intangible aspects, then use theory to build it.

Where one person is at the mercy of inspiration, the other can use methodology to create inspiration and overcome themselves.

As the latter type of musician, I know for a fact that I can write a song no matter what. I know other musicians of the other type who can't if they aren't inspired or haven't gotten that intangible element that can be very much out of their control. OR - if someone presents them with a musical challenge that may or many not be in their comfort zone.

I look at music theory as a way to ensure that you can always be musical. Understanding music theory means you can always make music. Just like understanding wood working means you can always make a cabinet. If you know the tools and how to use them, you can always create what those tools are there to create. Whether it's "art" or not is subjective. Whether or not it's a cabinet, a good cabinet, a solid and correctly built cabinet is not. I think most will agree that being able to frame out a solid foundation is always the first step in creating a solid construct.

The idea that people who have a working knowledge of music theory are at risk of becoming 'too analytical' and not being able to produce music people enjoy is a myth perpetrated by folks who've not found a way to effectively incorporate music theory into their process.

 

[tZer]

...I shouldda been there many years ago - <sigh>

Take heart - there's always time.

I thought I understood your intent from the first post - and still do. Theory is not a loaded word. It's just the science of music. It's nothing more than relating how things like notes, key signatures, intervals and so on are defined and commonly used. The 'thing' about theory is that many equate it to wizardry or magic - instead of what it really is - music's instruction manual - listing of pieces, components and how they fit together.

Like any discipline - it's the nuts and bolts that one can study and then reference later to create results.

Like a lot of disciplines, you don't necessarily have to learn the academics to be able to produce results nor will learning the academics guarantee you will produce results that people will fall in love with. Learning theory will, however, ensure you have a more intimate and working understanding of what makes music, music.

You've hit a VERY important point, however. DEFINE YOUR GOALS - then choose the correct path. If your goal is to be able to hook into a pop band and enjoy jamming on pop songs - you don't NEED theory - you really never need it. Learning short-cuts, tricks, patterns, boxes and all that is perfectly fine - no shame, no foul. If it results in you being able to enjoy what you do in music, it's the way to go.

I started young with theory and have always approached music using what I learned from theory. I've been playing for over a 1/4 century and as a part of my evolution I've come back to loving theory and continue to find more and more reasons to dig into it. The more I dig in, the more I find that I can use it in what I do.

But it's not a requirement - and if your goal is not centered around having a more academic understanding of music as a whole, then don't worry too much about it. If you find yourself in a place where you want to really know more, dig in, but be prepared. Like any academic pursuit, it can be dry and seemingly uneventful - that is until the light bulbs start lighting and you begin to relate it to how music relates to you.

 

[jhan]

+ 1 on a lot of the things mentioned. Good thread!!

My goal in learning theory is to become a better musician first, and a better bass player second. I always thinks of John Pattitucci in this way; he's a great bass player, but first and foremost - at least to me - he's a great MUSICIAN. He's a great accompanist, a great soloist, a great writer. The whole package.

I think of it in terms of an ensemble arreangement; when I'm playing with people, I want ALL OF IT to sound better, not just me. Forget direct compliments; "You guys sound awesome" is the greatest thing I can hear - AFTER constructive and honest criticism.

What helps me achieve this goal is learning the common language that all musicians 'speak.' As I learn more and more about harmony, melody, chord theory, etc, I become a better MUSICIAN, not just bass player.

On another track:

I NEVER understood how the modes worked together until a teacher (Buddy Booker) gave me an excercise where I played all the modes in a particular key in order, ascending up one mode and descending down the next mode, up and down the neck. All of a sudden, it all just 'fit' together and I realized the 'science' part of it and the 'art' part of it. Naturally, out of curiosity, I started to practice all the modes in every key this way and started to 'hear' phrases within the whole system. Next step was to venture beyond the four-fret position and learn the modes in 'stretch' fingerings, which REALLY helped me get out of the 'box' and become more adventurous melody-wise.

Then again, that's how it workd for me. Could be different for other people.

Point is, I'm just not one of those really linear folks who can read about a thing like this and 'get it.' I have to see it, hear it, and play it over and over again until it starts to become instinctive. Now, step-by-step, I'm throwing in fills I never played before because I have a better knowledge of harmony and melody, and I know the neck a whole lot better. I've also learned a lot about 'what' to play and 'when' to play it, when to break the rules and get a little crazy, when to just sit back and hold the pocket, etc. In a sense, my playing has become a lot simpler, except for the parts that aren't ;-)

'Simpler' is a good subject as well. Some of my favorite bass players are deceptively 'simple' players. Edwin Colin from Porcupine Tree is a great example. That guy does a better musical job in 'root-fourth-fifth' land than a lot of bass players who blaze all over the neck. I can tell by the way he plays that he has a lot of knowledge and musical authority. Plus, the guy is a whip at timing. He does a lot of playing on 'off' beats, etc, which really adds subtle interest.

I'm blabbering . . .

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

(not arguing with you - but I wanted to use this point to expand on something)

Where one person is at the mercy of inspiration, the other can use methodology to create inspiration and overcome themselves.

As the latter type of musician, I know for a fact that I can write a song no matter what. I look at music theory as a way to ensure that you can always be musical. Understanding music theory means you can always make music. Just like understanding wood working means you can always make a cabinet. If you know the tools and how to use them, you can always create what those tools are there to create. Whether it's "art" or not is subjective. Whether or not it's a cabinet, a good cabinet, a solid and correctly built cabinet is not. I think most will agree that being able to frame out a solid foundation is always the first step in creating a solid construct.

The idea that people who have a working knowledge of music theory are at risk of becoming 'too analytical' and not being able to produce music people enjoy is a myth perpetrated by folks who've not found a way to effectively incorporate music theory into their process.

I represent the "latter" category as well. And not arguing (at least I don't think so). I ended a musical relationship with a guy who could "at will" write songs "no matter what" as you do, or can. He prided himself on that, and to some degree, I appreciate that ability. However, I also think that the focus should not be on whether you can write a song any day, any time, about any thing, but can you write a good song?

I don't think knowledge gets in the way of creating great music, but I also feel just as strongly, if not more strongly, that knowledge is no guarantor of great music. I suspect while you haven't exactly articulated this, exactly in the way I have, that you'd agree. The "follow the rules" bar of functionality of physical product (ie- cabinet) is a bit different than what I think should be part of the rationale of music making, which succinctly is, not just to prove you can do it, but to say something with it.

I for one, and all for education and being smarter about music, and more knowledgeable about your craft, whatever it is.

Eh, just being the devils-advocate here, when I typically speak about this topic from your (and actually my own) point of view... all in the name of good conversation, of course.

 

[Double Agent]

Not theory OR ear. Why choose between food and drink?

My thoughts exactly. To truly develop as a player, you need to try to develop both. Focus on one for a little while, then the other. I had my ear training while in high school....in a music theory class. One is not "better" than the other, the two things complement one another.

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

The idea that people who have a working knowledge of music theory are at risk of becoming 'too analytical' and not being able to produce music people enjoy is a myth perpetrated by folks who've not found a way to effectively incorporate music theory into their process.

Very, very true. And well said. I would also say that there are many who know the theory are actually over-analytical about fulfilling the technical requirements of the music, and in a sense, because they think they have down-pat the "most important part" of music are not nearly analytical enough about the whole of what makes for great music. I don't want to be that guy.

I've heard some Steely Dan songs which, while technically correct, leave me cold. Ditto for smooth jazz and other output in which players have talent and ability in spades. On the other hand, some Rolling Stones performances leave me envigorated in both the raw energy and the art and theatre of music, and also on a more mental/technically minded level, the brilliance of the simple pop/rock song which never was intended to be the pinnacle of art or emotion, yet captures some of each in a way that Steely Dan (in it's less-great moments, despite it's ever-technically correct bar of excellence) does not always achieve.

For the record, I like both Steely Dan and The Rolling Stones.

 

[tZer]

However, I also think that the focus should not be on whether you can write a song any day, any time, about any thing, but can you write a good song?

To be clear - terms like "good" and "great" are entirely subjective and not relevant in the discussion of what music theory is and how it's used. A working knowledge will absolutely provide you the ability to create music. Just like a working knowledge of carpentry will provide you the ability to build things. Good/Great things? Subjective. Properly constructed things? Almost assuredly.

People studying music theory because they think it will make them write 'great' songs are studying it for the wrong reason. The ultimate outcome of a theoretical education is a more complete understanding of the subject at hand. It doesn't guarantee they student will become a hugely popular composer or pop star. It only guarantees that they will know what music is composed of and how to use it.

Again - a song is a song. A good song is one you like. I may not like it, but there is not denying that it's a song, right?

The "follow the rules" bar of functionality of physical product (ie- cabinet) is a bit different than what I think should be part of the rationale of music making, which succinctly is, not just to prove you can do it, but to say something with it.

I don't agree with the 'tag' you added; "which succinctly is, not just to prove you can do it, but to say something with it."

Music theory is indeed the rules/facts of music. Why someone creates music is again, subjective. They may be doing it because they want to. They may also be doing it because it's they're job and they have to. They may also be doing it because someone else asked them to. The rationale for creating music is to create music. Music theory teaches you the facts and building blocks of music and by extension, how to create music.

How you choose to define the "value" or "purpose" of that music is subjective and not relevant to the value or lack thereof of music theory.

Your friend who was entirely analytical may not be able to create music that appeals to you, personally - but if he's creating music, he's creating music. Theory and woodworking class both provide people what they need to build. How or why they build and whether or not people dig it is another topic altogether.

 

[chump stain]

Ear, and Theory do go hand in hand. Here's an easy ear training exercise. Think of the first two intervals of "Here Comes The Bride", that's a perfect 4th. The first interval of "Happy Birthday" is a pefect 2nd.
A great method for using ear training to teach you bass is, pluck out a melody. Try happy birthday. Start with your middle finger on the root note (can be any note, maybe on the E string). Now play the melody, you should be able to play the whole melody in one posistion, accross the neck. That simple song is a bit tricky, and will get you familure with the intervals of a major scale (or key). And is a great aid at helping you hear the intervals.

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

tZer, all interesting points, of which I understand, and can make a case for, as you have done.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Learning theory and being able to apply it is the difference between taking two days to learn a song by chasing notes vice being able to play it in about 1 minute or less, while knowing exactly what you are doing at all times.

 

[jhan]

+1. There's no substitute for knowing what you're doing.

Learning theory and being able to apply it is the difference between taking two days to learn a song by chasing notes vice being able to play it in about 1 minute or less, while knowing exactly what you are doing at all times.

 

[joemagar]

I didn't bother reading this entire thread, I just wanted to comment that there should be to "vs" in between theory and ears.

 

[dvh]

Learning theory and being able to apply it is the difference between taking two days to learn a song by chasing notes vice being able to play it in about 1 minute or less, while knowing exactly what you are doing at all times.

I'll +1 that also...

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

Learning theory and being able to apply it is the difference between taking two days to learn a song by chasing notes vice being able to play it in about 1 minute or less, while knowing exactly what you are doing at all times.

Maybe I understand you correctly, or perhaps I don't. My thoughts are these:

Good point. Good conversation. I am all for learning theory. Learn all you can. However, learning the theory and appying it does not necessarily do anything to develop your ears, if I understand what you are saying. I've had years of music theory, very little if any of it developed the ears in the way that sitting down with an album and trying to learn a bass part or a guitar part, or vocal would.

This is one of the things that allowed Beethoven to write music when he was deaf- he knew, mentally and technically how he wanted things to go together without actually being able to hear them. Traditional music theory provides enough formulas and rules that if you do not run afoul of them, you can, without ever hearing it, potentially create something that "sounds right" without ever putting a finger to an instrument to hear what it sounds like. There is benefit to this kind of structure, but I dare say that such exercizes develop ears.

I know people who can play the heck out of a piano, and sightread anything, and whose technical and analytical abilities are superb, but can't "jam" or play music unless its in front of them completely notated on the printed page. Basically musically emasulated without the papers on the stand. This is unfortunate. If a ear was developed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen, or would be much less likely to.

Theory is important. I'll never argue against that. And so is a musical ear.

I've seen all sides of this as a degreed student of music who has significant experience in pop, jazz, rock, classical, and in many different kinds of ensembles from woodwind quintets, to acappela vocal groups, to hard rock and improv jazz bands.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I agree they are both important. I think that some people tend to lean on ear training, i.e. chasing notes, to the the exclusion of theory because chasing notes is easy and accessible.

It tends to get you the results you seem to want at some level, but it's limiting in that it makes learning songs tougher and might steer you to look for licks and patterns to cop (which I love doing myself, because there's no need to re-invent the wheel), but the ability to create your own and then actually know why they work is priceless.

Working on theory is a long and somewhat tedious process and doesn't give you that instant gratification. Sometimes the hardest part of theory is finding the right stuff to work on at the right time and in the right order. Going the theory route, you only get the gratification after you've shedded it for awhile and you start applying it. But, it makes music much easier in the long run.

But having said all that, I think your ear is your best friend. The theory will allow you to connect the dots much faster and with more precision.

It's just my personal view and I have no problem with musicians doing whatever they want. Music is pretty subjective and everyone has different wants and different approaches.

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

Working on theory is a long and somewhat tedious process and doesn't give you that instant gratification.

Ain't that the truth! There's nothing sexy about it, but it can sure be helpful. I try to "sneak it in" a bit with ear training and showing licks and song stuff with certain students who have limited attention span for theory. Sometimes, though, I'm focused primarily on it in teaching lessons, depending on the student, topic at hand and so on.

I would much (!) rather teach theory than licks, and I sometimes I'm able to cross back and forth with theory and ear training, but sometimes it is a lot to break off and chew both bass technique, theory and also ear training at the same time. Hopefully, if I'm lucky, there will be seamless transition and flow between them where the individual is getting all three and all the lightbulbs are going off and their connectivity is happening.