Players that won't learn a note

[LBS-bass]

There have been four threads with the words "learn," "notes" and "fretboard" in the title and none of them is even remotely like what you describe.

View attachment 5129062

If we expand the search to "learn" and "fretboard," there are 18 threads, but still only two in the past two years and neither of those is what you describe.

There have been five threads with the words "memorize" and "fretboard" in the title, and again, none of them is even remotely like what you describe. Only one of those was started within the past two years (most were much older) and that one was started by a member with 15 years experience here who did not end up banned.

So I remain skeptical.

I'm guessing this was a troll thread, and it was likely quite obvious to some but not all, and the mods deleted it. I've seen a few of these here. It's a successful troll if someone falls for it, and obviously some folks do. Troll threads typically involve known hot-button issues, like theory versus feel, etc.

And of course when a troll thread gets started, the user who started it tends to get deleted, too.

 

[Tommyc]

Poor Artur Rubinstein, the dirty little over-achiever, he managed to learn Frank’s Symphonic Variations playing imaginary keys on his lap, while sitting on a train. I suppose I should be more impressed with someone who has real musical talent and has no need of paper crutches, what the little marks on the paper mean and how they relate to each other or other extraneous devices. Oh and if you think it’s a given that classical players can’t improvise. Look for Rubinstein, Chopin, improvise, memory lapse. He isn’t the only one either, guitarist Julian Bream would host his hot jazz nights ala Django at his London flat throughout the 60’s . I myself witnessed the Australian guitarist, John Williams in 1996 improvise a half page of the Bach Chaconne in the arpeggio section when he abruptly got lost. He also managed to seamlessly find his way back with those who didn’t know the piece being none the wiser.

 

[Tommyc]

Oh and another thing. Theory is not a road map nor a set of rules. Using the thorough bass method e. g I- IV- V7 - I, the practices of composers throughout the ages get analyzed. That’s all. When by 1890 Debussy, who knew more theory than anyone here, decided to use parallel 5ths in a piece, something you will get marked down for in a harmony class even today, he knew he was breaking implicit rules, but his reasoning knowing it was “wrong” was that he liked the way they sounded and that he was innovating, doing something new, new but good. Good as when Stravinsky played two unrelated keys at the same time etc. pick your innovation. They got there CONSCIOUSLY breaking “rules. ” But they all knew the rules.

 

[LBS-bass]

Oh and another thing. Theory is not a road map nor a set of rules. Using the thorough bass method e. g I- IV- V7 - I, the practices of composers throughout the ages get analyzed. That’s all. When by 1890 Debussy, who knew more theory than anyone here, decided to use parallel 5ths in a piece, something you will get marked down for in a harmony class even today, he knew he was breaking implicit rules, but his reasoning knowing it was “wrong” was that he liked the way they sounded and that he was innovating, doing something new, new but good. Good as when Stravinsky played two unrelated keys at the same time etc. pick your innovation. They got there CONSCIOUSLY breaking “rules. ” But they all knew the rules.

I've done parallel fifths in vocal harmonies for the tension it creates. I don't believe in rules when it comes to music. Things sound good, or they don't. You have to have an ear to know if they sound good but you don't really have to know why if they do.

Nothing wrong with learning the why- it may help you eventually. But don't mistake one for the other. Theory will only ever be a way to understand and describe what musicians do.

 

[Nashrakh]

When by 1890 Debussy, who knew more theory than anyone here, decided to use parallel 5ths in a piece, something you will get marked down for in a harmony class even today, he knew he was breaking implicit rules, but his reasoning knowing it was “wrong” was that he liked the way they sounded and that he was innovating, doing something new, new but good.

Mozart did it first

 

[themickster]

Oh and another thing. Theory is not a road map nor a set of rules. Using the thorough bass method e. g I- IV- V7 - I, the practices of composers throughout the ages get analyzed. That’s all. When by 1890 Debussy, who knew more theory than anyone here, decided to use parallel 5ths in a piece, something you will get marked down for in a harmony class even today, he knew he was breaking implicit rules, but his reasoning knowing it was “wrong” was that he liked the way they sounded and that he was innovating, doing something new, new but good. Good as when Stravinsky played two unrelated keys at the same time etc. pick your innovation. They got there CONSCIOUSLY breaking “rules. ” But they all knew the rules.

That's the first I've heard of that rule. Many a rock player does power chords throughout a song, unaware of that rule. Does anyone choose to keep to it?

 

[MoireBass]

I am particularly troubled by this notion when I fly in an airplane.

There's a Canadian show called 'Mayday' that shows up here on one of the 'off channels'. Each episode concentrates on one airplane crash and analyzes what caused it. I find watching it almost addictive, but it will NOT make you more confident about flying. Most pilots do a good job most of the time but, like us all, sometimes they do really stupid things too.

 

[MoireBass]

I wish we could dump the popular term 'music theory'. It's a prime example of how adopting the wrong word can lead to loads of inaccurate thinking.

The real word is harmony, and there's zero theory involved. Harmony is a set of practical observations of what sounds good and cool and what sounds lame and clunky. Observations made starting from the time of Vivaldi and Bach and the adoption of equal-tempered tuning in the early 1700s - up to Stravinsky and Debussy around the early 1900s. (Jazz harmony and 20th century harmony then take off in other directions). Harmony is a study of how notes and chords relate to each other. Harmony is the craft of understanding how sequences of chords can communicate emotions. It's just physics.

Almost every time my harmony teachers introduced a new musical device, they'd play familiar examples of it on the piano. And you realize that very familiar songs by Elton John, the Beatles, that Gershwin guy, songs heard in church, Motown, a TV show theme, etc. are full of these things, all over the place. You also realize that a lot of rock'n'roll only eats from kids' section of the big menu, only dares to use a little of what it could.

Some people have a bizarre idea that learning what other musicians have observed about how chords relate to each other somehow handcuffs you. They imagine that music harmony is a set of 'rules' and I guess they think their 'theory' teacher would, decades later, chase after them like a nun with a ruler to swat their palm if they violated one of these 'rules'.
A lot of musicians even use that an excuse when the actual reasons are fear (let's face it, a lot of musicians are dyslexic) and laziness.

In an earlier post, someone mentioned not thinking they were 'allowed' to use a (minor) v chord. In fact, some knowledge of harmony would show you ways to use that v as a borrowed chord or as a pivot chord in a way that sounds pretty cool.

 

[charliethomas]

That's the first I've heard of that rule. Many a rock player does power chords throughout a song, unaware of that rule. Does anyone choose to keep to it?

It's a "rule" in voice leading for pre-17th century counterpoint in western Europe. In my limited understanding, I think it was a way of enforcing variety and interest in counterpoint lines. There's nothing musically bad about it, except that it was perhaps boring in the context of multiple voices having separate lines that work together to create harmony. The music education establishment is really focused on 17th and 18th century (common practice period) rules and still teaches them for some reason.

It's kinda like how English teachers like to teach "rules" for English that don't apply and are made up. Like not ending sentences with a preposition. That was a requirement of classical Latin grammar (as in, not something you could accidentally do, it was built into the language), and people writing rules of English grammar decided to just take it and run with it. Eventually it was taught so much that it became a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy (or self-made prohibition) in prestige dialects of English, but it's never been an actual feature of English grammar.

 

[themickster]

There's nothing musically bad about it, except that it was perhaps boring ....

A good rule for all musicians: don't be boring. It would be hard to enforce, what with us all having our own thoughts on 'boring'.

 

[Tommyc]

Mozart did it first

There are actually spare examples of Bach before Mozart using parallel fifths in a few cantatas, but and here’s the big but, they occur in the bass in support of contrary motion in upper voices. They still were not in the 18th century considered good taste and were to be avoided. In Debussy’s Book 2 Prelude no. 10 he uses 16 parallel octave/ fifths melodically in the first 6 measures. It’s a chalk and cheese comparison. There is no attempt to hide them at all. Rather than use them in support of contrapuntal passages, they are used as tone colors pretty blatantly and in your face.

 

[SteveCS]

I wish we could dump the popular term 'music theory'. It's a prime example of how adopting the wrong word can lead to loads of inaccurate thinking.

The real word is harmony, and there's zero theory involved. Harmony is a set of practical observations of what sounds good and cool and what sounds lame and clunky. Observations made starting from the time of Vivaldi and Bach and the adoption of equal-tempered tuning in the early 1700s - up to Stravinsky and Debussy around the early 1900s. (Jazz harmony and 20th century harmony then take off in other directions). Harmony is a study of how notes and chords relate to each other. Harmony is the craft of understanding how sequences of chords can communicate emotions. It's just physics.

Almost every time my harmony teachers introduced a new musical device, they'd play familiar examples of it on the piano. And you realize that very familiar songs by Elton John, the Beatles, that Gershwin guy, songs heard in church, Motown, a TV show theme, etc. are full of these things, all over the place. You also realize that a lot of rock'n'roll only eats from kids' section of the big menu, only dares to use a little of what it could.

Some people have a bizarre idea that learning what other musicians have observed about how chords relate to each other somehow handcuffs you. They imagine that music harmony is a set of 'rules' and I guess they think their 'theory' teacher would, decades later, chase after them like a nun with a ruler to swat their palm if they violated one of these 'rules'.
A lot of musicians even use that an excuse when the actual reasons are fear (let's face it, a lot of musicians are dyslexic) and laziness.

In an earlier post, someone mentioned not thinking they were 'allowed' to use a (minor) v chord. In fact, some knowledge of harmony would show you ways to use that v as a borrowed chord or as a pivot chord in a way that sounds pretty cool.

Well yes and no. Theory covers a lot more than harmony. It begins with musical rudiments like pitch names, accidentals, key and time signatures, note values, rhythm, intervals, scales, basic triads and their inversions, dynamics and the essentials of notation and musical 'language'. More advanced study will include fundamentals of melody and harmonisation, counterpoint, ornamentation, cadences, modulation, figured bass and on into composition, 4-part arrangement and so on. Whilst I agree that harmony is the bulk of 'theory' it is not the totality by any means. So yes, I think you draw a useful distinction, but I would be leary of dumping the concept of music theory completely - it has a legitimate and essential place.

YMMV

 

[themickster]

My boy is worse than I thought. I've listened to some of his recent recordings It's not only his full-speed twiddling that doesn't fit a song but also his slower work.

We're told about the greats not knowing any theory. Maybe that's true, but Eddie Van Halen needed only two takes to nail Beat It, having never heard it before. My boy practises songs for a few days and still can't get his breaks right after many takes. He thinks he's nailing them but isn't. How do you fix that, when the player doesn’t listen to anyone? You don't, I guess.

 

[MoireBass]

Well yes and no. Theory covers a lot more than harmony. It begins with musical rudiments like pitch names, accidentals, key and time signatures, note values, rhythm, intervals, scales, basic triads and their inversions, dynamics and the essentials of notation and musical 'language'. More advanced study will include fundamentals of melody and harmonisation, counterpoint, ornamentation, cadences, modulation, figured bass and on into composition, 4-part arrangement and so on. Whilst I agree that harmony is the bulk of 'theory' it is not the totality by any means. So yes, I think you draw a useful distinction, but I would be leary of dumping the concept of music theory completely - it has a legitimate and essential place.

YMMV

The point I was trying to make was that I think the term 'theory' makes the topic of musical knowledge sound more complex than it is and that often scares timid people away. Knowledge about musical structures isn't like studying the Theory of Relativity or Information Theory, a lot of it is really pretty simple and kind of fun.

Different schools/teachers/gurus/knowledge sources may organize and sequence presenting musical knowledge differently. My schools included all the topics that you listed and many more in courses titled Basic Harmony I & II and Advanced Harmony I & II. It was never called 'music theory'.

We were introduced to intervals and cadences the first week (after our teacher made sure that all of us already understood notes, triads, treble & bass clefs, keys, etc.), we got harmonization and inversions and figured bass the second week, rhythms and polyrythms and different types of modulations came later, and we wrote 4-part mini- or full-scale compositions most weeks for four semesters. Quartal harmony and serialism wasn't until '20th Century Harmony' class though, which some books classify as Advanced Harmony.
You could call it all 'Musical Structures I-V' really. Just call it something less intimidating than 'theory'.

 

[MoireBass]

My boy is worse than I thought. I've listened to some of his recent recordings It's not only his full-speed twiddling that doesn't fit a song but also his slower work.

We're told about the greats not knowing any theory. Maybe that's true, but Eddie Van Halen needed only two takes to nail Beat It, having never heard it before. My boy practises songs for a few days and still can't get his breaks right after many takes. He thinks he's nailing them but isn't. How do you fix that, when the player doesn’t listen to anyone? You don't, I guess.

Lots of people here could give him good advice on how and what to practice to improve. Slowing things way down to build precision first is a good method.
But isn't this a punk band? Isn't choosing not to do what other people want you to do the whole point?

 

[SteveCS]

...
It was never called 'music theory'.
...
after our teacher made sure that all of us already understood notes, triads, treble & bass clefs, keys, etc.
...
Just call it something less intimidating than 'theory'.

Like I said I see your point, and it is a good one, but all the pre-requisites your teacher made sure of has to be called something - "theory" is as good as anything. Having been exposed to this stuff from a very early age I don't find it, or the name, even remotely intimidating, but I can see why someone might. And the boundaries between 'theory', 'harmony' and 'composition' are very blurred, almost arbitrary, as our handful of posts clearly illustrate.

 

[themickster]

Lots of people here could give him good advice on how and what to practice to improve. Slowing things way down to build precision first is a good method.
But isn't this a punk band? Isn't choosing not to do what other people want you to do the whole point?

Yes it's a punk band, but it's not the point to be awful at it. I've never known anyone to play as badly as he does without getting any better in 12 months. Some of his breaks are as if he's recorded himself twiddling and put it on another song picked at random.

It's not been about someone wanting him to do it their way, but about wanting to help him stop being awful at what he does. Many have told that his breaks don't fit the chords. I once said what you say, as in 'play fewer notes'. He said 'What do you mean?' He has slowed some of his breaks, but they still sound like they're in the wrong song.

 

[LBS-bass]

I don't know why the term "theory" is intimidating. I think many people don't really have a good grasp of what it involves, including perhaps myself, because we conflate theory with note reading and what I like to call the mechanics of music.

Learning your notes and where they are on your instrument isn't theory. Theory is about why certain things sound good and certain things don't. That includes harmony, of course, but it also includes melody, it includes movement, too.

I have a bit of a hard time with relabeling something because it's scary to someone. It reeks of coddling. Who made it scary? Why not demystify the correct label rather than pretend to reinvent the wheel?

A wheel is a way to move and transport things, but yes, it can also run you over and kill you. I'm not going to call it something else just to placate the person who is wheel-phobic. I'm going to help them understand that this is not the correct way to understand what a wheel is for.

 

[themickster]

I don't know why the term "theory" is intimidating. I think many people don't really have a good grasp of what it involves, including perhaps myself, because we conflate theory with note reading and what I like to call the mechanics of music.

Learning your notes and where they are on your instrument isn't theory. Theory is about why certain things sound good and certain things don't. That includes harmony, of course, but it also includes melody, it includes movement, too.

I have a bit of a hard time with relabeling something because it's scary to someone. It reeks of coddling. Who made it scary? Why not demystify the correct label rather than pretend to reinvent the wheel?

A wheel is a way to move and transport things, but yes, it can also run you over and kill you. I'm not going to call it something else just to placate the person who is wheel-phobic. I'm going to help them understand that this is not the correct way to understand what a wheel is for.

I like your theory on that

 

[Michedelic]

My boy is worse than I thought. I've listened to some of his recent recordings It's not only his full-speed twiddling that doesn't fit a song but also his slower work.

We're told about the greats not knowing any theory. Maybe that's true, but Eddie Van Halen needed only two takes to nail Beat It, having never heard it before. My boy practises songs for a few days and still can't get his breaks right after many takes. He thinks he's nailing them but isn't. How do you fix that, when the player doesn’t listen to anyone? You don't, I guess.

What EVH had to contend on “Beat It” would not be that much of a challenge structurally, the entire song is only three chords, up and down, back and forth. Not the usual suspect I/IV/V turnarounds, but with(from the recording)Ebm, Db, and B. Why that pitch/key, I have no idea, because the guitar riff throughout the song starts with the lowest note that should be bottom “E” normally, so I guess they downtuned or whatever. Still, a simple chord vamp for him to do his standard shred over. That chord sequence, in a different order and key, is the same as the solos on “Stairway To Heaven” or “All Along The Watchtower”.