Theory is cool but does it make people think too much??

[wisconsindead]

hey the OP came around! good luck on your journey. Now if I could just get my rhythm and lead guitards to learn this stuff...

 

[Lobster11]

Learning theory will steal your soul and completely undermine your ability to groove or play expressively.

That's utter nonsense, of course, but it's just a matter of time before someone says it, so I figured we might as well get it out of the way....

 

[mellowinman]

What this thinKing thinGS? I now got very much confused with spirders. Immense wannabe cool, but look in book and find lost bags. NOW! I want off jumpy thing. Cb is only note; whole rest not more restful than 1/2 rest in different timey cigarette. Learn notes and words be dumb I think, but not to think is too much not too enough more. I PLAY bass! I JUMP! You LOOK! Now see notes on page? WHAT they DO? Not as much as jump into sad little mind of men, and sometimes women too if luxury.

GOT?

 

[Bainbridge]

Ok guys, after reading all the responses and checking out some books and websites. Maybe I was a tad critical of theory. A lot of you guys explained the theory end of playing and it struck a chord (ha) So I'm definitely curious about it now.

So where does one who has been playing for 26 yrs seek theory? Books? Sites? Find an actual teacher in the area?

I found this book to be clear, concise, practical, and mostly accurate: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/063404771X

(It's cheap, too.)

This website is free, and you can blaze through the lessons in an afternoon: www.musictheory.net

This PDF is free, and I am amazed at how much is packed into its pages, especially considering all of the page filler and graphics: http://tobyrush.com/theorypages/pdf/complete.pdf

The problem I have with that one is that it makes some very stupid statements sometimes (such as questioning the effectiveness of modern staff notation on the grounds that some of our notational procedures are employed to "save ink" while ignoring the fact that these procedures do not get in the way of notational and literary efficiency), and the comic sans typeface coupled with the general presentation make it difficult to take it seriously.

I think that those resources cover just about everything a pop musician would need, and then some. If you want to go the extra mile or do "jazz theory" I have one more. You'll see people recommending Mark Levine's book, but I am of the opinion that you can do much better for jazz harmony. This book is shorter and has fewer statements on harmony that make me roll my eyes (though the author has a dogmatic view on orchestration that is downright incorrect on occasion): http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226732096

Good luck, OP. You are about to embark on a fantastic voyage.

 

[since197three]

Thanks guys I was checking out Mark Levine's book. Great reviews on it. I will check out these links also.

 

[faulknersj]

Here you go sir. Other videos under the band name I either played or wrote the bass lines. Left the band right before they recorded an album and all the songs were set in stone but we just reunited recently

While spend a lot of time striving to understand music and increase my knowledge everyday...I understand that for the type of music some play...it really might not be all that crucial. OP...I'm not so sure it would be all that crucial here. In your band, the bass is a 'guitar fattener.' In other words...the bass basically follows the guitar and plays the root of each chord...essentially serving to fatten up the mix. I personally wouldn't call the bass on the song a 'bass line' as it just follows the guitar, but that works for some songs.

 

[eddododo]

Music theory is useful in terms of recognizing idioms and communicating musical concepts. It is NOT a good approach to writing

 

[faulknersj]

Music theory is useful in terms of recognizing idioms and communicating musical concepts. It is NOT a good approach to writing

In what genres?

I would say all of the guys u list on your profile as influence..Jaco, Bach, Beethoven used theory to write...

 

[eddododo]

In what genres?

Only the ones with 12 notes

 

[faulknersj]

Only the ones with 12 notes

Do u play jazz?

 

[eddododo]

Do u play jazz?

I do play jazz. Music theory isnt a writing approach, its a tool, a language of understanding. Beethoven didnt once write something because 'theory states I HAVE to'. He wrote with his INTUITIVE GRASP OF MUSIC ITSELF. Theorists write about Beethoven not the other way around. I have degrees in theory/comp and a master's in jazz. I understand theory well enough to know that its a great tool but it doesn't write [good or interesting] music on its own

 

[faulknersj]

I hear what you are saying...but to think that Jaco didn't know what chords he was playing over in some of the Weather Report stuff for example is hard to imagine. It is also hard to believe that he didn't know what to play over those chords based on his knowledge of theory.. It's also really hard to imagine Bach or Beethoven not utilizing theory when they fit all of the chords together on paper using different instruments and sections. If you know what key a song, or each part of a song is in...that IS theory at work.

You are totally correct that theory, in and of itself, does not write music for you, but, these guys all had formal training in music theory and that training was absolutely a part of their writing/composition process.

Mozart.....that might be a whole different topic....

 

[eddododo]

I hear what you are saying...but to think that Jaco didn't know what chords he was playing over in some of the Weather Report stuff for example is hard to imagine. It is also hard to believe that he didn't know what to play over those chords based on his knowledge of theory.. It's also really hard to imagine Bach or Beethoven not utilizing theory when they fit all of the chords together on paper using different instruments and sections. If you know what key a song is in or each part of a song is in...that IS theory at work.

I get the feeling that we pretty much agree except for where the definition of music theory ends.. I have no doubt Jaco's grasp of theoryis light years beyond my own, what I guess my point is that he was not thinking of rules and patterns, is thinking of the sound that he wants to come out at the other end. Writing 'with' theory is like translating Spanish to English in order to communicate, whereas truly having a free grasp of the notes separate from the English language is like being able to think Spanish in your head; both cases would be able to translate English to Spanish but only the latter would be able to have an engaging conversation in it. On somebody who over thinks theory all the way into uselessness, but at the end of the day I find the being fluent in notes them selves is much more effective, and I tend to leave theory in practice to tasks like describing Gb13 without having to strum the chord and wait for everybody else to figure it out

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I do play jazz. Music theory isnt a writing approach, its a tool, a language of understanding. Beethoven didnt once write something because 'theory states I HAVE to'. He wrote with his INTUITIVE GRASP OF MUSIC ITSELF. Theorists write about Beethoven not the other way around. I have degrees in theory/comp and a master's in jazz. I understand theory well enough to know that its a great tool but it doesn't write [good or interesting] music on its own

But Bach and Beethoven etc had some rules to follow (like for a while they couldn't use tritone etc ) so they knew them and avoided them or write something OK by the book

 

[zontar]

If someone thinks too much, they will think too much no matter how much, or how little, they know.

 

[faulknersj]

I get the feeling that we pretty much agree except for where the definition of music theory ends.. I have no doubt Jaco's grasp of theoryis light years beyond my own, what I guess my point is that he was not thinking of rules and patterns, is thinking of the sound that he wants to come out at the other end. Writing 'with' theory is like translating Spanish to English in order to communicate, whereas truly having a free grasp of the notes separate from the English language is like being able to think Spanish in your head; both cases would be able to translate English to Spanish but only the latter would be able to have an engaging conversation in it. On somebody who over thinks theory all the way into uselessness, but at the end of the day I find the being fluent in notes them selves is much more effective, and I tend to leave theory in practice to tasks like describing Gb13 without having to strum the chord and wait for everybody else to figure it out

I totally get what your saying. For the purposes of this thread....a guy like the OP would need to learn how to translate the language BEFORE he could master it and think in it....ie....we do agree that a theoretical foundation must be laid before one can instead turn their focus on what to lay atop that foundation.

 

[eddododo]

But Bach and Beethoven etc had some rules to follow (like for a while they couldn't use tritone etc ) so they knew them and avoided them or write something OK by the book

But alot of that was fashion/progress. Music had evolved only to a certain point, and similarly certain approach is used In say Renaissance music were considered primitive in bachs time. Then Debussey later broke the parallel 5ths rule. Les claypool glorified tritones. Hell bach was a rockstar and today's rock stars would never use proper voice leading....

 

[since197three]

While spend a lot of time striving to understand music and increase my knowledge everyday...I understand that for the type of music some play...it really might not be all that crucial. OP...I'm not so sure it would be all that crucial here. In your band, the bass is a 'guitar fattener.' In other words...the bass basically follows the guitar and plays the root of each chord...essentially serving to fatten up the mix. I personally wouldn't call the bass on the song a 'bass line' as it just follows the guitar, but that works for some songs.

I hear what you're saying. For that style of music it's all that is needed. Anymore would be a clusterf**k IMO. I don't want to solo but sit in with a jazz fusion band and jam would be cool. Scales scales scales are the first thing that come to mind when I think of theory. I know where the notes are up and down the fretboard and what key songs are in.

 

[chrism2sych]

The title of this thread sounds a lot like "Does reading lead to over thinking" - since when is knowing something bad?

I believe that many folks, perhaps the OP, are looking for justifications for *not* learning theory - much as some folks are looking for justifications to not learn to sight read. Sorry folks - it's work, it's not all fun. That's why not everyone can do it.

Guys, I am NOT talking about being clueless about what notes I'm playing, their location on the neck etc. i can read music and know scales from guitar class in HS aa I mentioned in my original post.

I just feel music and the arts in general should have a natural feel. Theory is needed at the start of course. But I can spot players who have that natural groove to players who are stiff and following a set of rules.

Theory is not rules....
But ideas, hints, clues, of what may or may not sound good in certain situations, you never played anything that made no sense from a theoretical stance but still sounded really good? About not having feel some do and some don't.....but the ones who have it and some theory to back it up will always have more options at hand, when one player without theory maybe pedaling a root or a root five the guy with the theory can be playing an inversion or making a sixth or seven work or any # of countless options that will make their playing sound fresher especially if they possess "it" or "groove"

 

[faulknersj]

Theory is not rules....
But ideas, hints, clues, of what may or may not sound good in certain situations, you never played anything that made no sense from a theoretical stance but still sounded really good? About not having feel some do and some don't.....but the ones who have it and some theory to back it up will always have more options at hand, when one player without theory maybe pedaling a root or a root five the guy with the theory can be playing an inversion or making a sixth or seven work or any # of countless options that will make their playing sound fresher especially if they possess "it" or "groove"

I love 3rds and 7's