Why do so many people seem to think that music theory is all about scales and modes? Most of what I've learned from theory classes has to do with analyzing/recognizing chords and those chords relationships to one another other (diatonic, altered, and borrowed chords). This isn't meant to indict anybody. I'm just wondering why that seems to be a common perception.
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.
Question About the Perception of Music Theory
- Thread starter The Messenger
- Start date
i know what you mean. i have been mainly self taught over the years and i realized a long time ago that every chord is a note away from being something else. learning the chords and their relationships to one another will show that. some people see music theory as random and overwhelming but i always see it as making sense if you realize that those 12 notes are very related to each other. jus sayin...
This would be my guess as well. Those who don't have any clue what it's about generally have that perception.
Music theory is a language. It allows us to talk music. You need NO music theory to play music but you need some to communicate with other musicians. If you tell me "key of A" that defines a whole bunch of stuff (I probably don't need anything else to jam along). I know lots of people that can blow me away with their music theory but they can not play two notes. How much music theory you need is purely subjective.
If you choose to "study" music theory, you will study do-re-me-fa-sol-la-ti-do. Yes the major scale. With very few exceptions "ALL" your scales and "ALL" your chords are right there in that major scale. You will also learn a bunch of big words naming these things as well.
If you choose to "study" music theory, you will study do-re-me-fa-sol-la-ti-do. Yes the major scale. With very few exceptions "ALL" your scales and "ALL" your chords are right there in that major scale. You will also learn a bunch of big words naming these things as well.
while I agree with most of what you said in your post, I just want to say that major scale does not have all chords. basically, you will do fine with four scales (major, harmonic and melodic minor, harmonic major). in this case I would say nearly all chords are there... but just major scale? not nearly enough, it won't even get you through the third bar of ladybird...
Have to agree with the point that they have no idea what is involved, it is their ignorance that spreads and feeds these ideas around when they talk about them.
Worst offenders are those that "make it big" with no musical skills, then boast proud about it, as if it was the reason they got lucky.
Worst offenders are those that "make it big" with no musical skills, then boast proud about it, as if it was the reason they got lucky.
IMO - if you are self taught you do tend to start with scales and chords because that is what you need to utilize fake chord or lead sheets and play covers. Even with an instructor there is little time in a 30 minute lesson for any lengthy theory discussion to take place. Here are the notes and here are the chords and you play them this way covers how I was taught right at first.
Analyzing/recognizing chords and those chords relationship to one another is a higher form of theory and most likely happens from being taught in a structured class environment.
A self taught person has no concept of how to go about analyzing music right at first. Takes awhile to understand the value of analyzing and most that are self taught wade into this later rather than at the beginning of their journey.
I also agree with what has been said about learning theory as a means of communicating with other musicians. For some this need is satisfied rather quickly and for others it takes longer. Depends on how much you need to communicate. For example; Shirley's next one is "You done me wrong" in A. It's just A and E7, ready 1 & 2 &... How much theory is needed for that?
A little, but, is it necessary to analyze why only the tonic chord and the dominant seventh are used in this song?
This, and applying scales and modes to playing or constructing basslines from chord charts may be the only application of the knowledge they need.
You don't NEED theory to be a great musician, none of the Beatles could read music and they're considered arguably the greatest rock musicians, if not best of all genres.
However they probably didn't learn because they initially didn't have the resources to learn, and by the time they became successful, they had their own ways of working around it.
I think anyone, especially if they are serious about becoming a musician, is giving themselves a huge disadvantage by refusing to learn theory, especially with resources these days (you can learn a great deal online for free). Some styles require knowledge of theory so you are basically limiting yourself by not learning it.
However they probably didn't learn because they initially didn't have the resources to learn, and by the time they became successful, they had their own ways of working around it.
I think anyone, especially if they are serious about becoming a musician, is giving themselves a huge disadvantage by refusing to learn theory, especially with resources these days (you can learn a great deal online for free). Some styles require knowledge of theory so you are basically limiting yourself by not learning it.
The Beatles had George Martin, early in their careers, a great orchestral producer with the BBC, then EMI and its sub companies, that saw him come to work with the Beatles. Maybe it was working with him that exposed to them the use of a musical education and to see the benefits of working things out for themselves, rather than continually asking him questions about what they were doing when writing songs and recording...i mean i would suppose his influence would rub of on them all in some way if not directly them asking.
I came to study theory through an odd route. By chance and some inclination I took up playing tenor banjo -- which is basically a chording instrument. I tried learning a lot of different kinds of songs, not just traditional Dixieland, but Beatles, Key to the Highway type blues and Motown and Grateful Dead, etc. It intrigued me that some song structures worked very well with an instrument that works easily with 4 note chords/ 7th chords and some don't. And how some melodies wrapped around voice leading on the chord progression when I figured out usually the minimal finger movement for a given chord inversion.
So it turns out I was fairly fortunate to come to theory from the functional harmony song structure perspective. That is the strippped back fake book starting point, but it's the difference between learning another song after another song -- which is how most people get started and learning music -- how songs are put together and have some common functional elements.
So it turns out I was fairly fortunate to come to theory from the functional harmony song structure perspective. That is the strippped back fake book starting point, but it's the difference between learning another song after another song -- which is how most people get started and learning music -- how songs are put together and have some common functional elements.
Really?
Ok, there are 12 notes. Make sense of em. How do you use them to build a piece of music?
Theory starts with scales and their modes because this is the basis.
Chords are derived from scales. Wanna know why the C, G, F, Am and Em chords work together so well? Because they are all are made from notes in the C major scale.
Melodies are created by applying scales.
Listening to scales allows you to hear the how each of the 12 notes sounds relative to a root. This helps you to understand the tonal palette available to you.
I don't care whether you want to learn theory or not. If you come up with your own system and use it to make cool music, good for you!
But if you ask me to help you learn music theory, the starting point is scales and modes.
Ok, there are 12 notes. Make sense of em. How do you use them to build a piece of music?
Theory starts with scales and their modes because this is the basis.
Chords are derived from scales. Wanna know why the C, G, F, Am and Em chords work together so well? Because they are all are made from notes in the C major scale.
Melodies are created by applying scales.
Listening to scales allows you to hear the how each of the 12 notes sounds relative to a root. This helps you to understand the tonal palette available to you.
I don't care whether you want to learn theory or not. If you come up with your own system and use it to make cool music, good for you!
But if you ask me to help you learn music theory, the starting point is scales and modes.
You're absolutely right....but as a young guitar player in the late 80s modes were the hot topic......this was propelled by guitar mags interviewing guys like satriani and vai...at high school the main question from one player to another....do you know your modes? All of them? Lol.
But yes.....there's far more to theory then modes......and so many melodic players learn so little about rhythmic theory too.
But yes.....there's far more to theory then modes......and so many melodic players learn so little about rhythmic theory too.
Part of this may stem from the Jamey Aebersold jazz method books. "Here's a chord, play this scale." Those play along books/CDs (or cassette tapes back in the day) are not books of music theory, but if that is where a person's music theory education starts and stops, it's normal for that person to be overly focussed on scales and modes.
By contrast, if someone's music theory was mostly based on the 4-part chorale writing of J.S. Bach, they would think that music theory was all about melodic counterpoint, harmony and voice leading with 4 parts.
By contrast, if someone's music theory was mostly based on the 4-part chorale writing of J.S. Bach, they would think that music theory was all about melodic counterpoint, harmony and voice leading with 4 parts.
Fergie Fulton said:
It should be understood....site reading and theory are two separate things......the beatles most certainly knew chord relationship theory.....their songs are packed with skillz.......there's infinitely more theory in the beatles music then todays......you just can't write a tune like yesterday without knowing what you're up to.
I used to love analyzing the chords underneath Bach pieces. I guess I'm from that school then, look at chords and figure out note relationships, not necessarily what mode or scale I should be plucking from. Meh, I'm a mediocre bassist at best but that's what theory is to me. I admire people who can plug in from any angle fluidly.
It's a lot easier to dismiss something as useless when you really don't know anything about it.
One of the things that contributes to the popularity of most rock and pop music is its accessability. You don't need to have a serious musical background or even be an attentive listener to understand what's going on. A lot of the simpler musical principles used are easily learned by fumbling around on an instrument until it sounds good.
One of the things that contributes to the popularity of most rock and pop music is its accessability. You don't need to have a serious musical background or even be an attentive listener to understand what's going on. A lot of the simpler musical principles used are easily learned by fumbling around on an instrument until it sounds good.
