• 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, or ear?

#23
Probably. I tend to think that in attaining a high level of proficiency as a composer, theory is unavoidable. It comes with the territory. If you're not taught it, you pick it up through listening to & transcribing music, as well as composing your own. Ok, so you may not know the names for various things, but you know the concept. You can understand the function of a secondary dominant without knowing it's called a secondary dominant. Hell, you might not even know the dominiant is called the dominiant, but you can understand its function, and how it relates to the key.

In fact to some extent it's been like this for me. I learnt quite a bit about harmony from playing & transcribing, without being taught it, and then when I started A-Level Music at college, it was a case of "Ah, so that's what it's called when you do that...". Many of the concepts weren't new, just the names!
 
#24
Originally posted by moley
I tend to think that in attaining a high level of proficiency as a composer, theory is unavoidable. It comes with the territory. If you're not taught it, you pick it up through listening to & transcribing music, as well as composing your own. Ok, so you may not know the names for various things, but you know the concept. You can understand the function of a secondary dominant without knowing it's called a secondary dominant. Hell, you might not even know the dominiant is called the dominiant, but you can understand its function, and how it relates to the key.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactlly.
 
#26
Both.

Absolutely.

Theory would be meaningless without a good ear, and a good ear will get you pretty far until someone says 'we're playing in Eb Major' and you have no idea what they're talking about.
 
#27
Originally posted by moley
Probably. I tend to think that in attaining a high level of proficiency as a composer, theory is unavoidable. It comes with the territory. If you're not taught it, you pick it up through listening to & transcribing music, as well as composing your own. Ok, so you may not know the names for various things, but you know the concept. You can understand the function of a secondary dominant without knowing it's called a secondary dominant. Hell, you might not even know the dominiant is called the dominiant, but you can understand its function, and how it relates to the key.

In fact to some extent it's been like this for me. I learnt quite a bit about harmony from playing & transcribing, without being taught it, and then when I started A-Level Music at college, it was a case of "Ah, so that's what it's called when you do that...". Many of the concepts weren't new, just the names!
Click to expand...

How did you transcribe if you knew no theory? I played in a band with two guitarists who didn't even know the name of notes they played. How would they transcribe? Heck...they couldn't.

And you mentioned how the dominant functions and relates to the key. How would you know what a key was, if you knew no theory at all? The reason I state that is we have some posters who come here and ask really basic questions that show they don't have a grasp of keys.

We have a few posters honest enough who come here and admit their "ear" isn't good enough to "play by ear" and pick out notes in songs. Such students would be extremely handicapped if they tried to teach themselves by ear. It would take them a long, long time. In fact, they might get discouraged first instead and quit.

I was in an ear training class in which we had some students who couldn't even discern if a two-note interval was ascending or descending. I don't think such students could reliably teach themselves by ear. Others seemed to be more naturally gifted. They MIGHT be able to, but I still think it would be faster, easier and more efficient to have some theory to guide one's studies.
 
#28
Originally posted by Boplicity


How did you transcribe if you knew no theory? I played in a band with two guitarists who didn't even know the name of notes they played. How would they transcribe? Heck...they couldn't. .......


We have a few posters honest enough who come here and admit their "ear" isn't good enough to "play by ear" and pick out notes in songs.
Click to expand...

How did you transcribe? Ear. I do it everytime i hear something on the radio. i would rather rely on my muscial ear, than by some man made threory. I learn theory, and to be perfectly honest, all i'm learning is what i know already, they just have fancy muscial names and "labels". in the end, it's music,,, notes,,, thats IT. not to say learning theory is not good, it is, it's a meduim (man made though it may be) through which people can learn about an intangable thing (music). And whats up bop? why so defensve? sounds like you just WANT to argue, like it gives your life meaning or something:)
 
#33
Originally posted by BAAAWWWWKKK!!!! IWANNACRACKERBASS


How did you transcribe? Ear. I do it everytime i hear something on the radio. i would rather rely on my muscial ear, than by some man made threory. I learn theory, and to be perfectly honest, all i'm learning is what i know already, they just have fancy muscial names and "labels".

Of course theory uses a lot of labels. Duh. That's what theory is - the labeling of every possible relationship of notes and rhythms to each other. You label them so that when you want to use one, you know exactly what it is and how to build it at the precise moment you "hear" that particular sound. So that if you're hearing (for instance) a tritone substitution coming up half a second from now, you can just play the ******* tritone substitution instead of reacting like so: "Uh....huhhuh....There wuth thith really COOL thound I heard on thith Thmashing Pumpkinth record....yeah,yeah....and....Uhhhhhhh....I'd like to kinda like.....huhhuh... useth it in this thong thomewhere ath thoon ath I get like.....uhhhh... a couple of hourth to figure out how to tAb it. Billy Corgan RuLeTh!!!

And whats up bop? why so defensve? sounds like you just WANT to argue, like it gives your life meaning or something:)
Click to expand...


Boplicity is probably the single most helpful person who answers questions in this forum, and answers them in a completely forthright and guileless manner. If you're looking for the person who looks to argue to give their life meaning, look no further than your nearest mirror.

Theory is a Science. You may not want to admit it, but the house you live in was built upon science. The clothes you are wearing were created with the aid of science. The machine at whose screen you sit staring vapidly as you read this was built upon science. There's absolutely nothing wrong with science, and it is not in any way unnatural. Science does not destroy creativity, it enables it.

I hate to sound like Ed here, but if anybody wants to seriously argue this point further, how about getting both "sides" ("Theory Stifles Your Creativity" vs. "Those Who Study the Science of Music") to post some sound clips and let the music speak for itself?
 
#34
Originally posted by Boplicity


How did you transcribe if you knew no theory? I played in a band with two guitarists who didn't even know the name of notes they played. How would they transcribe? Heck...they couldn't.

Agreed. I didn't know *no* theory. I knew the basics. Generally, I assume that people do, at least, know what notes they're playing - in the case of an instrument like the bass, that is. I also knew how to form major and minor triads, and the basics of the concept of keys. Of course, you've gotta get these basics from somewhere. IIRC I got most (if not all) of those basics from my Dad.

And you mentioned how the dominant functions and relates to the key. How would you know what a key was, if you knew no theory at all?

You wouldn't.

The reason I state that is we have some posters who come here and ask really basic questions that show they don't have a grasp of keys.

Indeed.

We have a few posters honest enough who come here and admit their "ear" isn't good enough to "play by ear" and pick out notes in songs. Such students would be extremely handicapped if they tried to teach themselves by ear. It would take them a long, long time. In fact, they might get discouraged first instead and quit.

Well, it's difficult for me to be objective about playing by ear. I know that in the beginning, I was not much good at playing by ear, and that through years of transcribing things, I now am. My experience indicates to me that you really can learn to play by ear - but, I am told by others, who don't play by ear, that it's natural talent, and they can't see how I do it. I've never tried to teach someone to play by ear, so I've no first hand experience of how difficult or easy it is for people to learn. As I said, I can't really be objective. But I'm certainly not disagreeing with what you're saying.

I was in an ear training class in which we had some students who couldn't even discern if a two-note interval was ascending or descending. I don't think such students could reliably teach themselves by ear. Others seemed to be more naturally gifted. They MIGHT be able to, but I still think it would be faster, easier and more efficient to have some theory to guide one's studies.
Click to expand...


Couldn't determine if it was ascending or descending? Now that is interesting. I suppose, like you say, it really is a matter of being naturally gifted.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. With my original post I wasn't trying to say that was the best way to do it, I was just saying that's how I've done it. I wasn't advocating the teach-yourself approach over the getting lessons approach, at all. I was really just saying what worked for me. Everyone's different. I have the advantage here that I started pretty young. This stuff is a lot easier to learn when you're young. I was transcribing Bohemian Rhapsody when I was Terry's age. And, I did have an understanding of the functionality of the chord progressions. Given that Terry is that age now, and wanting to learn theory, another approach may be better.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't suggesting that anyone should do it the way I've done it, I was just saying what worked for me.
 
#38
Originally posted by moley
I've never really understood why people want it to be either/or. Why does it have to be theory or ear? Why not both? In fact the two go hand in hand marvellously, they complement each other, they work together.
Click to expand...


Theory IS ear training. That's the whole point. You label every sound you could possibly hear, so that when you want to use it, you know exactly what it is you're trying to play. That's why this whole "Theory or Ear" argument is so fundamentally ludicrous. The title of the thread might better be, "Target Practice: Using a Telescopic Sight vs. Using a Blindfold.....which is better?"

Because the real question being asked here is, "Do you want to actually know what you are doing or not?" If anyone wants to continue to wander around not knowing what they are doing, that's just peachy with me - but for these same people to post and continue to post that it's better to act in (musical) ignorance than to inform yourself, well.....lets just say that this is a notion which, because of the TB forum rules, can only really be properly responded to by a string of asterisks.

In other words, this idea is utter ********. :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back