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.
Theory is cool but does it make people think too much??
- Thread starter since197three
- Start date
I don't think it would be a cluster, but sometimes that's cool. Monk made clusters straight killin'.
Anyways, scales are a really basic material of music theory. I would suggest learning the following:
Major Scales/Modes:
Ionian
Dorian
Phrygian
Lydian
Mixolydian
Aeolian
Locrian
Learn these to the point that you can write any Mode in any Key.
Then get to a point where you can given an "Eb Aeolian" and know
all of the relative Modes (i.e. Gb Ionian, Db Mixolydian, etc.).
You should also understand standard chord progressions found
within the primary Mode (Ionian/Major, i.e. "A" is the home chord for the key of "A").
After this, it will make other scales more accessible.
The next two scales would be Melodic Minor and Harmonic Minor.
Discover why they are given those names originally and how they
function Classically and then discover how a jazz head would use them.
Each of these scales yields modes different than the Major Mode.
For example, the Harmonic Minor would be:
Harmonic Minor
Locrian Nat6 (some call this Locrian #6)
Ionian #5
Dorian #4
Mixolydian b2, b6
Lydian #2
Harmonic Diminished
Once you do all of the same things you did for the Major Scale
you can then move on into even more uncommon scales,
such as the Harmonic Major and the Double Harmonic Major.
Use these to push your ear to new levels and then you
can create your own concepts within them.
Keep in mind, however, that there is still the theory
of substitutions, deceptive resolutions, modulations,
interchanging modes, etc. etc. It's a LONG process
that, if you so desire, never ends and is incredibly
rewarding. You can learn to imply so many things
that make very rich and full sounds.
If you ever need any help, feel free to send me
a message on Talkbass and I'll try my best to
walk you through the issue until it is resolved.
Wow man this exactly what I wanted to hear and what I am after.
Much appreciated and I will take you up on that offer. Thanks!
i think both. Theory is cool AND it makes some people think too much.
Theory is a means to an end. It's supposed to give you the vocabulary to articulate the lines in your head. But if you're just thinking about scales there will be no line to articulate. It just comes out as exercises and finger patterns.
Theory is a means to an end. It's supposed to give you the vocabulary to articulate the lines in your head. But if you're just thinking about scales there will be no line to articulate. It just comes out as exercises and finger patterns.
I recommend Invalid Link Removed, then others to taste. You can read music so it will be a snap. The nice thing about them is that left track is Bass/Drums, right track is Piano/Drums so you can listen to the recorded bass track, then turn it off and play along.
The best thing about this approach is that it gives excellent ear training while learning the sound of these various chords and modes. You won't think about the theory when performing but because you have practiced it extensively, you will find that it has become part of your playing lexicon.
No problem, mate.
I'm a huge fan of what scales can offer both melodically and harmonically.
And yeah, anytime you get stuck or whatever, hit me up!
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
Exactly!! My thoughts exactly..... Fat string, 2nd dot from the end, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da....
What more do I need??
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
Whether you dig it or not is a subjective call (I personally do like it), but serial music is music largely informed from a theoretical approach to writing.
Also, I disagree that theory can't be a good writing tool. Just as an anecdote, I remember writing a song in a band years ago. The guitarist wrote a progression at the end of the intro that went between E and F# twice. In the context of the composition, that chord progression made sense, but it sounded hokey and weak for me to just play an open E and F# twice at the end of the riff. I decided to expriment and I played a first inversion E major chord that resolved into the F# perfectly. It sounded very strong, and I would have had trouble arriving at that destination without some theory knowledge.
Last edited:
INFORMED yes. But its informed in the sense that you can hear something in your head and KNOW what it is because you're informed. But merely understanding Music Theory is futile, you have to breathe it to intuit its meaning faster than you could use language to explain it. You have to take it Into the hardware in your brain. You know what that enlightened point is called ? Being a good musician
''Writing with music theory" as I keep referringto is like when 'a guy' I know insists that a song "can't" end on the five, it "has to" resolve.
Plenty of great musicians are masters of theory, and that is not what I'm trying to debunk;
Only that knowing scales and the names of modes, or being able to say 'retrograde' are merely tools for understanding and communicating without having to re invent the wheel every time you play a major chord. Relying on theory itself to make music for you , especially when coupled with a sub-graduate level understanding of theory, is a recipe for Band in a Box compositions.
Thanks for the link.
I kept thinking of Anthony Wellington's message about 4 levels of awareness as I read this thread. The perennial discussion about theory seems to be framed as between the first level (unconscious not knowing) and either the second (conscious not knowing) or the third (conscious knowing). As Anthony describes, these two are not blissful states.
I think that Sonny Rollins's comment about not thinking and playing at the same time is advocating something more like the 4th state, rather than the first, although he doesn't really go into it in that interview. Using something like yoga to develop one's self is moving beyond thought, rather than advocating ignorance, IMHO.
"Once you get out of that first level, the only way to get back to a blissful state is to take it all the way through..."
Sorry if I'm repeating someone else's comments, as I didn't read the whole thread, but the biggest flaw in the original question is not that it doesn't give proper respect to theory, it is that it doesn't give proper respect to knowledge. The entire concept of "thinking too much" is an argument for ignorance. This is much too popular an argument these days. It really doesn't matter what the topic is, it's the wrong way to go.
That tool has potential, but it uses enharmonic names(two names for the same note) that many would consider to be wrong in many cases. For example, C Mixolydian has a Bb, not A# for the 7th degree. Also, C# major (Ionian) is clearly wrong (should be C# D# E# F# G# A# B# C#, and NOT C# D# F F# G# A# C C#). You would almost certainly use Db major(Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb C Db) instead of C# major.
I think the problem is that it doesn't seem to choose the enharmonic names in context of the scale in which they're being used. If you find this tool to be useful, then so be it, but I would worry that it might be more confusing than it needs to be.
I am impressed that you're looking for resources, nonetheless, given this thread...
