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

[Lobster11]

I'm with those who consider theory as a source of ideas, but not the final arbiter of them (that being the ear).

A recent example in which a little theory went a long way: A bandmate came to practice with a partially written song. It just alternated between two chords, but it had a cool groove, great lyrics, and a nice vocal melody. He knew it needed more, though, and so he asked the rest of us for suggestions. Another bandmate and I -- the official band theorists -- came up with the same idea simultaneously: Given that the two chords were C#m and D, it occurred to us that they could readily be part of a larger song in the key of A. Response: "Key of A, huh? Interesting idea. I'll fool around with that." A week later the guy shows up with a now-complete song, having added a second part (and lyrics to go with). Now it starts with a verse section that starts on A -- i.e., A - C#m - D -- and then switches to the original C#m/D section for the chorus. And it works just as it "theoretically" should: With the A part firmly established, the C#m/D part now generates a lot of tension -- it sounds like it desperately wants to get back to A -- so when it finally does go back to the A for the next verse, Bam! -- there's a huge resolution/release. (He then built further upon this idea by having the second chorus last twice as many bars as the first time around, thus generating even more tension/suspense as you wait for it to come home to the A.) It's my favorite song in our repertoire now, and I think it's kinda cool that what ultimately made it come together was the simple recognition that the two chords he had started with suggested the possibility of a particular (different) key.

 

[since197three]

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...

Yeah a lot of people commented and made valid points that I took into consideration and thought about. I'm an open minded guy so I decided to do some research and see whats out there to better myself. Definitely not against that.

 

[wrench45us]

"I'm with those who consider theory as a source of ideas, but not the final arbiter of them (that being the ear)."

A few years ago I was very active on electronic music forums. It was a more than weekly post that had some 'producer' with a great start of 4 bars and didn't know where to go or what to do with those great 4 bars. It was a pretty common situation of 'producers' with lots of great starts sitting in their folders waiting to get finished.

The other common posts were:
"what key is this song in?"
"what chords are in the attached song?"

a little theory can go a long way

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

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"

EXACTLY.

I'm convinced that folks who get the idea that learning theory / reading will some how "stunt" their creativity or spontaneity are just looking for reasons to no do the extra work. It's like anything worth doing in life -it's always better to know more, and if you refuse to learn, you are merely limiting your options.

 

[mambo4]

The illusion that theory 'makes you think too much' or makes you 'too technical' or whatever comes from a very real phenomena:
Apprentice level players often mistake theoretical complexity for musicality.
They mistakenly belive that , once they can name the theory behind something, it becomes "boring"
In an ongoing quest to avoid being "boring" they pursue ever more "interesting" manifestations of theory.
Paradoxically yielding less and less engaging , more boring music.

A theoretical idea can be grasped quickly, but the taste required to apply theory musically comes only whith experience and listening.
In my experience you don't choose to apply theory: you play what that sounds cool, and it just "ends up" being one or another thoery idea put into practice.

 

[JimmyM]

The illusion that theory 'makes you think too much' or makes you 'too technical' or whatever comes from a very real phenomena:
Apprentice level players often mistake theoretical complexity for musicality.
They mistakenly belive that , once they can name the theory behind something, it becomes "boring"
In an ongoing quest to avoid being "boring" they pursue ever more "interesting" manifestations of theory.
Paradoxically yielding less and less engaging , more boring music.

A theoretical idea can be grasped quickly, but the taste required to apply theory musically comes only whith experience and listening.
In my experience you don't choose to apply theory: you play what that sounds cool, and it just "ends up" being one or another thoery idea put into practice.

I'm having a hard time arguing with your theory. I've heard it happen. Doesn't happen with everyone, though. Certainly hasn't happened to me. I know theory well and I'll play as dumb a bassline as any yob out there

 

[markjsmithbass]

I'm frankly amazed that people could still be hanging around a General Instruction forum and discussing the pros and cons of music theory. I can't see how there could be any downsides to learning more about music whatever the area of study. Completely wrong information might be a problem but I don't see how purposeful ignorance is anything to aspire to. I completely get that people might be happy with how they play with the level and area of knowledge they have. You don't need to be versed in Bartok Set Theory or Schenkerian Analysis to play bass in pretty much any band. But purposely making a stand against any kind of learning in general is pretty apathetic. When was the last time you met an expert in anything that you thought "Well, he's brilliant and all but I think he just knows too much" You're more likely to meet a person with a memory full of facts and figures but no means of application. That happens quite frequently because knowledge doesn't equate to expertise. But by the same token, knowledge also doesn't equate to 'lack of' expertise unless you're spending all your time memorising facts, names and numbers with no consideration as to the application. This is where guidance is required in the application of information. Otherwise it's just theory for the sake of theory. Perhaps some of the people that are seeking a reason for learning theory are actually seeking a reason and method for application. As an extreme example, has any serious composer of the last 400 years suffered as a consequence of learning more 'theory'?
That said, I personally don't really draw a line between music in practice and music in theory. It's all the same thing. It's just music. Some of the things people class as 'theory' like Scales or Arpeggios or intervals are simply labels we give to things for the sake of communication. The other areas of harmony that explain how chords interact and the overall concept of tonality can be lumped into a kind of 'theory' box but the term is very broad ranging and nudges into more focused areas like composition, improvisation and arranging. The difference between music theory and music practice is still only a matter of application. Taking that into consideration, a lot of this boils down to how serious you are about studying music in general and that requires a lot of honesty and shedding of ego. There's no shame in drawing limitations on how far you want to go with music, but by the same token, it's important to realise that some musicians (rock guitarists are really bad for this) are not the all round 'amazing' musicians they think they are.

 

[Lobster11]

The illusion that theory 'makes you think too much' or makes you 'too technical' or whatever comes from a very real phenomena:
Apprentice level players often mistake theoretical complexity for musicality.
They mistakenly belive that , once they can name the theory behind something, it becomes "boring"
In an ongoing quest to avoid being "boring" they pursue ever more "interesting" manifestations of theory.
Paradoxically yielding less and less engaging , more boring music.

This might well be true for some people, but I think there's another "real phenomenon" that is probably much more common in contributing to the illusion: When people first start learning some theory, they find themselves thinking about it and analyzing what they're doing (or could be doing) while they're playing instead of listening and feeling; consequently, they lose the groove and blame it on the theoretical knowledge getting in the way. I've certainly fallen into this trap myself, especially when I was first beginning to learn theory: The band would be jamming over an Em chord, say, with me playing some simple pentatonic line, and then I'd start thinking about how I could grab some additional notes from the E Aeolian mode/scale, which is parallel to G Ionian, so maybe it would be cool to play for awhile in B Phyrigian.... and next thing you know I've lost track of the groove and the jam implodes and dies a miserable death. The solution, of course, is to do your studying of and experimenting with theoretical ideas during practice, not while you're playing. If you keep at it (when practicing), the ideas eventually become sufficiently deeply ingrained that they will start coming out in your playing without you needing to actually think about them. The problem is that have to stick with the program long enough for this to happen. But I suspect that many folks give up after falling into this trap the first time, and draw the conclusion that learning theory hurts more than it helps.

Anyway, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it....

 

[Nev375]

If you equate your brain to a library of books, you find as you learn music you amass a tremendous amount of books.

Thinking is the process you go through to enter your library and pull out the book you need.

Whether you know it or not, you have a system of organizing all the books you know. That system is a theory.
... yours may be a fuzzy not well defined theory, but you still have a way of mentally looking at music.

Proper music theory is like the Dewey Decimal system. It is a tried and true method of organization.
...You might think at first that such a system complicates things. In fact it makes it easier. Even under this system you learn where the books are that you most often use and rely on. You don't even think about the system even though you are using it. But the better you know the system, you immediately know where to look for the things you don't know or once knew and forgot.

The added upside to this is if we all have the same system of organizing, we can communicate our ideas faster and learn all that much faster. Since the secondyou are given a new book, you know right where it fits in your system of thought.

So no. Theory makes you have to think way less in the long run. It does not force you to play one way or the other. It does not stunt your creativity, it can only enhance it. The music ideas and note choices are always your own. It does not strip you of any feel or soul in your playing. That is your choice too. Some people got it though, and other people don't got it. It's got nothing to do with how they sort their head.

Think about it.

 

[mambo4]

...they find themselves thinking about it and analyzing what they're doing (or could be doing) while they're playing instead of listening and feeling; consequently, they lose the groove and blame it on the theoretical knowledge getting in the way.

yes, this too. I have certainly been there.

 

[smeet]

I've been thinking about the OP's question, which has been asked and stated many times. On the face of it, it seems ridiculous - more knowledge is always better, and it can only help. Right?

Well, there is a validity to the question. There has been a lot of thought and many books devoted to the subject of "getting out of your own way" - of not letting expressiveness get taken over by that little internal voice that is constantly trying to talk and make sense of everything.
Look at (excellent) books like "The Inner Game of Tennis", "Effortless Mastery", and many others. What are they getting at, what do they try to tell us? Basically that what makes us human is this little thread of concious thought that runs over everything, it's the part of you that "thinks" in language and asks the question "What note should I play" and says to itself "that sucked, I should have played that differently...", "that lick was awesome", etc. That part of our mind is GREAT in the classroom and practice room. That's how we learn theory. That part of our mind (left brain?) can do great things. But it's slow. If you have to consciously decide each note to play, you would be very slow and clumsy. The challenge is that once you learn the facts and know your stuff, and once you've put in the practice, it's time to get out of your own way, to observe but silence the little conversation, and to "play from the heart". You have to trust that the 95% of you that is NOT the little monologue is good enough to do it without your monologue directing and critiquing everything. This is the crucial step that separates "mere" technique from inspiration, and it is not unique to music.

This is not to say that I think that knowledge and theoretical learning is not good, quite the contrary. But we have to learn to trust that once we have learned, we can step back and simply let the music flow, while not losing the technical grasp we have gained from our practice. Don't force it, use the force...

Hope that makes sense. I think it's a very important point that we all instinctively know, but it sometimes gets lost in the shuffle.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

I hate thinking. It makes me think too much!

 

[wrench45us]

I am reminded of my first real job. This was back in the pre-digital era. I had been working in various photo labs big and small for a few years and used that experience to get a job as a lab technician where they designed and manufactured photographic printers.
There was an example in a user's manual of how to balance a printer and two pages of how to calculate the color balance changes based on test results. It was a quite detailed example and I studied it for quite a while when it finally dawned on me that all the example was explaining was a simple interpolation formula that I had been doing as a matter of course for several years.
That's kind of how music theory should come across.

 

[Major Softie]

Just because there are self-help books to help you solve a problem does not necessarily mean the problem is genuine or the topic is being addressed in an intelligent way. As example I give you the entire self-help book industry.

 

[TroyK]

The track sounds good. How much theory is required to play like that? Arguably none, so it depends on what you want to do with your musical life.

It helps a lot with composing, arranging, communicating with other musicians, understanding what you are hearing when you are learning something aurally. It enables me to take a call and go play without a rehearsal with people I may or may not have known before. It's not just my ability to play, but it's my ability to understand quickly and efficiently what to play that gets me a lot of jobs. Not just jazz either, music is music.

I've got a local friend who leads a rock band and they just got a recording contract. They're great, he's talented, it's a good life. He is a self professed musical moron and it's working out great for him. We were on the same bill once and I asked him if he wanted to sit in with us and he freaked out. His M.O. is getting together with the same 3 people, spend months working stuff out, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse, practice, practice, practice, gig. It's fine, but it's really limiting. Every time someone leaves his band, he has to start over and "teach" someone new every note they need to play and then rehearse until they are comfortable again.

He's got talent and he sounds great and is making the music that loves. In a couple of months, I could teach him to get out of his own way and play whatever he wanted to without the panic attack or the steep learning curve. It would NOT make him sound mechanical.

Fear of the unknown is much more debilitating the knowledge.

That said, is it "necessary" for a rock bassist to learn theory to play the bass. No, it's not.

 

[Lobster11]

I've been thinking about the OP's question, which has been asked and stated many times. On the face of it, it seems ridiculous - more knowledge is always better, and it can only help. Right?

Well, there is a validity to the question. There has been a lot of thought and many books devoted to the subject of "getting out of your own way" - of not letting expressiveness get taken over by that little internal voice that is constantly trying to talk and make sense of everything.
Look at (excellent) books like "The Inner Game of Tennis", "Effortless Mastery", and many others. What are they getting at, what do they try to tell us? Basically that what makes us human is this little thread of concious thought that runs over everything, it's the part of you that "thinks" in language and asks the question "What note should I play" and says to itself "that sucked, I should have played that differently...", "that lick was awesome", etc. That part of our mind is GREAT in the classroom and practice room. That's how we learn theory. That part of our mind (left brain?) can do great things. But it's slow. If you have to consciously decide each note to play, you would be very slow and clumsy. The challenge is that once you learn the facts and know your stuff, and once you've put in the practice, it's time to get out of your own way, to observe but silence the little conversation, and to "play from the heart". You have to trust that the 95% of you that is NOT the little monologue is good enough to do it without your monologue directing and critiquing everything. This is the crucial step that separates "mere" technique from inspiration, and it is not unique to music.

This is not to say that I think that knowledge and theoretical learning is not good, quite the contrary. But we have to learn to trust that once we have learned, we can step back and simply let the music flow, while not losing the technical grasp we have gained from our practice. Don't force it, use the force...

Hope that makes sense. I think it's a very important point that we all instinctively know, but it sometimes gets lost in the shuffle.

This is a great post that I wish we could sticky somewhere. At risk of not doing it proper justice, I'd summarize the key point (in the current context) something like this: If thinking about theory is interfering with your playing, the problem is not the theory, it's the thinking.

I'm glad to say that in most ways, I think I'm pretty good about this most of the time. Usually I can put the analytical theorizing out of my mind when I'm playing, and I'm pretty good about letting errors go without dwelling on them (at least until the end of the tune, when I might give myself a good retrospective dope-slap if it was a whopper). The one that trips me most often is the thought of "Wow, this is going really well...." -- at which moment it invariably ceases to be true.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Knowledge good (to paraphrase Tarzan). You wouldn't ask a surgeon to use "feel" to know where to cut, or a mechanic to use intuition to work on your car.

The more you know about how music works, the more options you have in figuring out what and how to play. Otherwise you are just guessing. I wish I remember more of the theory I studied in college.

 

[mambo4]

If you have to consciously decide each note to play, you would be very slow and clumsy. The challenge is that once you learn the facts and know your stuff, and once you've put in the practice, it's time to get out of your own way, to observe but silence the little conversation, and to "play from the heart". .

I am reminded of Anthony Wellington's excellent "Four Levels of Awareness" clip

 

[Blueszilla]

The track sounds good. How much theory is required to play like that? Arguably none, so it depends on what you want to do with your musical life.

It helps a lot with composing, arranging, communicating with other musicians, understanding what you are hearing when you are learning something aurally. It enables me to take a call and go play without a rehearsal with people I may or may not have known before. It's not just my ability to play, but it's my ability to understand quickly and efficiently what to play that gets me a lot of jobs. Not just jazz either, music is music.

I've got a local friend who leads a rock band and they just got a recording contract. They're great, he's talented, it's a good life. He is a self professed musical moron and it's working out great for him. We were on the same bill once and I asked him if he wanted to sit in with us and he freaked out. His M.O. is getting together with the same 3 people, spend months working stuff out, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse, practice, practice, practice, gig. It's fine, but it's really limiting. Every time someone leaves his band, he has to start over and "teach" someone new every note they need to play and then rehearse until they are comfortable again.

He's got talent and he sounds great and is making the music that loves. In a couple of months, I could teach him to get out of his own way and play whatever he wanted to without the panic attack or the steep learning curve. It would NOT make him sound mechanical.

Fear of the unknown is much more debilitating the knowledge.

That said, is it "necessary" for a rock bassist to learn theory to play the bass. No, it's not.

This, this, 1000 times this. You have eloquently and exactly expressed what I wanted to say. Thank you.

 

[smeet]

Just because there are self-help books to help you solve a problem does not necessarily mean the problem is genuine or the topic is being addressed in an intelligent way. As example I give you the entire self-help book industry.

I assume this in reference to my mention of Inner Game and Effortless Mastery. I think that whether or not you like these books, they are trying to get at an essential truth - that our conscious train of thought can sometimes interfere with smooth execution of complex real world activities like playing music or tennis. Kenny Werner's book in particular, while not too well written, was very inspiring to me. I am a very analytical person, and it helped me to see that I was wasting a lot of mental energy and hamstringing my playing as a result.

I am a difficult person for cults or self-help movements to seduce. The ones I mention are tapping into a way of thinking that I feel is valid and useful. Your mileage may of course vary.

Theory for me is useful in many ways, but one in particular is when I am freely improvising by ear and I hit some thing that has a flavor I love. I want remember how to reproduce that sound on other tunes. If I can just say something like "a minor arpeggio based on the b5 of the chord sounds good on the turnaround if a blues" then it's something I can remember for both practice and performance, and in my mind it's now associated with that sound I liked.