Bach and Chopin didn't know theory? Well... That's some interesting news, even if it isn't true.
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 vs. Feel
- Thread starter progmanjum
- Start date
Bach and Chopin didn't know theory? Well... That's some interesting news, even if it isn't true.
I listen to jazz but here it seems to be limited to pop, rock, punk, funk and country.
Sorry, I'm still learning english.
Well Bach, you may be right but I have a book on Chopin and he didn't go to a music school.
He sure did know some theory, but what he knew, he learned it by himself not in a formal music class.
I never said there wasn't... Just said it's not for me. I'd have to play music I don't like if I got paid to play covers, and since I don't care about making money I also don't care to play music I don't like.
Without feel, there is no point to becoming a musician in the first place, but theory is needed if you want to take it anywhere. Basic theory, such as the notes on the neck, chord structures (Major/minor triads, pentatonics), and basic standard progressions, (12 bar, Circle of 5ths, etc.) makes it easy to communicate with other musicians.
IMO, a lot of people generalize as to "what's the requirement". Well, that depends on what you want to play. I don't want to insult any genre, but you probably need a bit more theory to play in an improve jazz/fusion group than a Johnny Cash tribute band.
The question is not "theory vs feel", it's how far do you want to go as a musician.
...Kind of like asking if you need to know spelling and grammer to be a writer. They definately help you communicate, but you'd better have something to say as well.
IMO, a lot of people generalize as to "what's the requirement". Well, that depends on what you want to play. I don't want to insult any genre, but you probably need a bit more theory to play in an improve jazz/fusion group than a Johnny Cash tribute band.
The question is not "theory vs feel", it's how far do you want to go as a musician.
...Kind of like asking if you need to know spelling and grammer to be a writer. They definately help you communicate, but you'd better have something to say as well.
Nah, I don't think that's true as a rule. I do both, and I know lots of folks who do original music and know theory.
BTW, Roy's point is a great one if you're interested in making something out of music. Being famous and rich from it is winning the lottery, but making decent money with it isn't out of the question. Now I don't know how it is in your neck of the woods, but reading music and knowing theory means the difference between making a nice middle class living with music and only playing weekends in bars.
Calebmundy
Supporting Member
- Apr 5, 2007
- 1,134
- 817
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: DNA Amplifiers, Lākland Basses
LOL +1 and great post from Roy at 164
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f22/theory-vs-feel-694575/index9.html
I would prefer a guy with awesome feel but no theoric knowledge-whatsoever to a guy with amazing theory but no feel. HOWEVER, besides that, I think you should have both. A bassist should judge himself about how much of each he should have. The ideal bassist would be a theory monster with lots of feel of course 
But that's pretty rare, I think.
As a bass player with basic knowledge on theory, and a guy that puts the feel of a bass line above all; I think every bass player should at least try to improve his theoric side. I don't think it'll ever hurt. We usually see topics or articles that compare these two "approaches", but I don't think one gets in the way of the other.
I, myself, wish I had great knowledge on theory.
But that's pretty rare, I think.As a bass player with basic knowledge on theory, and a guy that puts the feel of a bass line above all; I think every bass player should at least try to improve his theoric side. I don't think it'll ever hurt. We usually see topics or articles that compare these two "approaches", but I don't think one gets in the way of the other.
I, myself, wish I had great knowledge on theory.
Bingo! Not sure if this is actually a fact, but I think it is at the heart of the "theory" argument.
There is musically "theory" - scales, chords, rhythm etc that is pretty much impossible to function as a musician without.
Then there is "academic music theory" which is used to justify having 4 year degree courses at the big colleges. You can probably get by without most of that stuff.
To continue the cooking analogy from waaay back in this thread. You can't cook without knowing a little bit of science (you cook by applying heat, water boils at 100 degrees celsius, steam=boiled water etc.) but you don't need a science degree to cook decent food.
But if you want to serve food to others say as in a business you need to understand, amongst other things, food hygiene laws, and of course you have to gaurantee the quality of the service everytme you cook, you cannot learn as you go.
The theory verses feel, if you want to call it that is rally laid to rest by todays technology. Compare what a computer does now compared to what one did say 25 years ago.
back then you had no feel, you got the theory side of it in as much as it was only as good as the programmer. Early 80s music digital technology sounds and feels dated by todays technology.
What makes the difference is the human element, we are not perfect. It is our short comings that are the feel, our ability not to be perfect, and the fact we never will, that is the difference.
Theory is only the "programming" in all this, if you can't programme it, you can't get it.
Thats why many top drummers were used to create programmes with feel that sounded like a drummer had played them....not a machine, or even the influence of a programmer that did not know about the nuances of drumming.
As said it is a blend of the two, top session guy have a high blend, others have a low blend, while others have none.
The funny thing about this subject, when talking to some younger players, is that until they reach a a point way way way down the line, they never seem to get it. But when they do its usually a big chunk of their playing lives wasted in avoiding or being to lazy to learn theory. point being there are two many artists out there ith success that use little or no theory at all, and that is justification for them......as onlyclave says the want to
Well in the end it is the person that makes the decision that faces the consequences of their actions. i have lost count of the amount of players that i have met that all agree they should have leart more about the theory side of there playing THAT APPLIES TO WHAT THEY DO IN THIER CHOOSEN GENRE.
Thats right their choosen genre...all genres have a certain theory that goes with the music.... because it is music.
Even if a player learns the theory of say what makes Blues.... Blues, or Country.... Country, then they are learning theory to which they can blend a feel. High blend = good player, low to no blend = bad.
Add to this the small number of exception to the rule player, players that really don't know how they play the way they do, and there will be the justification from those that see others, is the fact that the natural talent and situation of their playing abilities, is in spite of any success, not because of it...in other words we would never know the true heights they could have reached if they had more or better theory knowledge.
The one thing i always hear from such players, for example in timing, is that they can't feel changes......the answer i give is why feel it, just count it. In that respect theory gives you the tools to work things out for yourself rather than have relying on others....who may give you the wrong information that you accept as fact...in the end you have the ability to make the decisions and quantify the facts.
If i present the senario, this actually was explained to me by a "feel" player, to you that a waltz is just 4/4 over 3 bars that add up to 12 making it 12/4, you then divide that by signature by 4 to get the four sections of 3 a beat feel of a waltz, then you just extend it for the duration of the piece you are playing, you will in fact be playing waltz time in 3/4.....is this a fact or is it just completely wrong?......if you have the theory you can make the correct decision to reject it or accept it.
Then we have the situation that if you accept it you will now tell others this is a fact, (as was tried with me) or if you reject it you can in fact correct them and set them straight.
You may feel you are playing 3/4, but the correct theory may tell you the truth.....blind leading the blind comes to mind in one of those senarios.
My sons are "gifted" with very high intelligence, especially in areas of verbal comprehension. Just found out a few weeks ago. What I've learned is that this can lead them to underachieve, as because so many things are easy for them, when they're faced with a learning situation that requires effort, they don't know what to do. So it's possible for them to go through life coasting in many areas and never realizing their potential. They will come up with many convincing reasons why they don't need to learn the multiplication tables for example.
Anyone see a connection to this thread topic?
Anyone see a connection to this thread topic?
Point well made, as in most cases the "pro player" is very very over qualified for what he does.
When Nathen East for example plays Blues gigs, he is at the lower end of his abilities so to speak, so the job is about him using ( and his employer knowing ) he is using about 10% of his actual ability to play what is required of him with 90% in the tank, rather than him needing to use 90% with 10% to fall back on and bringing mistakes and unreliability to the fore.
As usual if you listen to his work with BB King, most competent players can play what he does....so why did they not get the gig?????
One thing that always comes up in these discussions is the point about the 'uneducated' musician being able to adapt to unplanned musical changes better than those who have always played by charts or scores. There is some truth in this, and I think it is one of the few points where the so-called classical music training has a weak spot that should be remedied.
I have played for about 15 years and only started learning theory three years ago. I never had the inclination to learn, and that was not because of any excuses (I hate that expression, it seems to imply that you need excuses for doing things, intended for your own pleasure, in a 'wrong' way). I got around fine with only basic theory, playing many gigs with skilled musicians and getting better all the time at playing outside or inside the box according to the musical context.
I have really enjoyed finally learning the musical language, I use theory all the time to learn stuff faster and improvise better, and I enjoy writing music and then taking it apart to see how it ticks. But when playing with trained sight readers (a skill I haven't quite mastered yet) in any practical context, I am sometimes appalled at how poorly they react to improvisation and 'jamming'. I guess I am lucky having learned to be attentive because I lacked the theoretical tools.
This is the only way in which I believe theory can limit you, and good music education should take that into consideration so that sight reading becomes only one of a variety of tools.
Obviously, this does not go for all the reading musicians I have encountered, but the trend is there.
I have played for about 15 years and only started learning theory three years ago. I never had the inclination to learn, and that was not because of any excuses (I hate that expression, it seems to imply that you need excuses for doing things, intended for your own pleasure, in a 'wrong' way). I got around fine with only basic theory, playing many gigs with skilled musicians and getting better all the time at playing outside or inside the box according to the musical context.
I have really enjoyed finally learning the musical language, I use theory all the time to learn stuff faster and improvise better, and I enjoy writing music and then taking it apart to see how it ticks. But when playing with trained sight readers (a skill I haven't quite mastered yet) in any practical context, I am sometimes appalled at how poorly they react to improvisation and 'jamming'. I guess I am lucky having learned to be attentive because I lacked the theoretical tools.
This is the only way in which I believe theory can limit you, and good music education should take that into consideration so that sight reading becomes only one of a variety of tools.
Obviously, this does not go for all the reading musicians I have encountered, but the trend is there.
That may indeed be true for formally trained classical players. (I don't know, I'm not in that realm at all).
But, for jazz players, in which the ability to improvise on the fly and often through complicated changes is expected, the direct opposite is true, in my experience. (That is: a formally trained jazz player won't be stuck on charts or scores).
a player, and get by without knowing theory. But you must know theory to be a musician.
I am a groove player, but I know (and use) my school and self taught knowledge of music and theory every day, even in a blues band I play with. I write and chart music, I create and arrange for horns, I read both clefs, as well as transpose Eb and Bb charts. I play in pit bands, jazz groups, in New Orleans R&B and old soul bands, blues bands, etc., where the pocket is king. I would not have a third of the work I get, if I tried to get by without theory and knowledge of music and how a song / composition is constructed..
The Beatles did not go to school for music, they couldn't read well, but they sure as heck learned music and song construction on their own, because they knew their success depended on it.
When I went to study music in college, my teacher asked me one question that directed my life: "do you want to be a player, or a musician?" Think about it...
I am a groove player, but I know (and use) my school and self taught knowledge of music and theory every day, even in a blues band I play with. I write and chart music, I create and arrange for horns, I read both clefs, as well as transpose Eb and Bb charts. I play in pit bands, jazz groups, in New Orleans R&B and old soul bands, blues bands, etc., where the pocket is king. I would not have a third of the work I get, if I tried to get by without theory and knowledge of music and how a song / composition is constructed..
The Beatles did not go to school for music, they couldn't read well, but they sure as heck learned music and song construction on their own, because they knew their success depended on it.
When I went to study music in college, my teacher asked me one question that directed my life: "do you want to be a player, or a musician?" Think about it...
