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
A lot of people say that you don't 'use theory' when you play. They say that learning theory and performance are separate entities and one is done here while the other, there.
I don't necessarily agree. Certain basic theory should become a part of your DNA so that you don't have to 'load it into active memory' to use it - it's always there for you as a byproduct of playing. You understand dynamics, how to properly interpret your role and choose your notes, how to create tension and release through dissonance and harmonic resolution. Theory applied without a lot of conscious thought is called "feel". When theory become a part of your DNA it's now a part of how you play - not something you try to do - you do.
But how does all that theory become a part of your DNA? You have to apply it - consciously, as you play. As you learn that stuff you can go into your upcoming jam sessions with your mind 'pre-loaded' with some things you want to explore. The only way for that sort of stuff to become a part of your DNA and not to have to use your active memory to apply it in flight is to have tried it in practice. The only way to try it in practice before it's a part of your DNA is to load it into your active memory and consciously plan to use it - and to consciously use it.
Now it's important to say that there's a time and a place for everything - and I am lucky to have a band filled with music geeks who fully embrace the idea of exploring during our jam sessions. The last place I'd be 'experimenting' is in a performance, however. In performance I agree 100% that you should not be thinking 'theory' on iota. You should be executing your part as expertly as you can while being as expressive and dynamic as possible. You should be using what's in your DNA and not trying to add new links to your helix. In performance, it's 'use what you know' time.
But when you are in the jam room with your band mates and you have been filling your head with theory - by all means use it!
I don't necessarily agree. Certain basic theory should become a part of your DNA so that you don't have to 'load it into active memory' to use it - it's always there for you as a byproduct of playing. You understand dynamics, how to properly interpret your role and choose your notes, how to create tension and release through dissonance and harmonic resolution. Theory applied without a lot of conscious thought is called "feel". When theory become a part of your DNA it's now a part of how you play - not something you try to do - you do.
But how does all that theory become a part of your DNA? You have to apply it - consciously, as you play. As you learn that stuff you can go into your upcoming jam sessions with your mind 'pre-loaded' with some things you want to explore. The only way for that sort of stuff to become a part of your DNA and not to have to use your active memory to apply it in flight is to have tried it in practice. The only way to try it in practice before it's a part of your DNA is to load it into your active memory and consciously plan to use it - and to consciously use it.
Now it's important to say that there's a time and a place for everything - and I am lucky to have a band filled with music geeks who fully embrace the idea of exploring during our jam sessions. The last place I'd be 'experimenting' is in a performance, however. In performance I agree 100% that you should not be thinking 'theory' on iota. You should be executing your part as expertly as you can while being as expressive and dynamic as possible. You should be using what's in your DNA and not trying to add new links to your helix. In performance, it's 'use what you know' time.
But when you are in the jam room with your band mates and you have been filling your head with theory - by all means use it!
Knowledge is power, cliche but true.
I'm teaching some rock band classes. Often we do a song that not everyone has heard. If I can put up 6 fingers and my bass player (or whomever) can go to the 6, we can speed along. It helps if he knows it's probably minor, and if it isn't he'll know it sounds "wierd" and probably remember it's Maj or whatever. If I can say it's a 1 5 6 4 (which seems to be the flavor of the year) and they understand, we can also change keys very easily.
For me personally, when I do get (or take) study time, I like to investigate the sound of
chords , be it polychords or less diatonic sequences. If I can identify the sound of a polychord and get my ear very familiar with it, it can become part of my vocabulary. As a bassplayer, when I hear that type chord I have a good idea of what the harmony guy is thinking. I bet most guitar players who have a few years under their belt know the sound of the Dom7#9 chord thanks to Jimmy. It has a sound and whether they know the technical term or not, they know it's that Jimmy chord. The sound of it becomes part of their vocabulary. As the vocabulary becomes larger it's helpful to know what to call things.
There's a great steel drummer, Boogsie Sharp, who can spit back Charlie Parker, Dizzy, etc. type lines and harmony after hearing them once. I hear he can't tell you anything about what chords he's playing over, yet he's playing all these chord extensions. His ear has catalogued the sound of the lines and intervals I believe. He also has thousands of hours on his instrument. Guys like him are the exception and I bet they all share the fact that they've played more hours than most folks.
All that said (whew), IMO a great ear is the strongest asset, and if it comes with some curiosity and study habits as well, said person will be climbing the gig ladder quickly.
I'm teaching some rock band classes. Often we do a song that not everyone has heard. If I can put up 6 fingers and my bass player (or whomever) can go to the 6, we can speed along. It helps if he knows it's probably minor, and if it isn't he'll know it sounds "wierd" and probably remember it's Maj or whatever. If I can say it's a 1 5 6 4 (which seems to be the flavor of the year) and they understand, we can also change keys very easily.
For me personally, when I do get (or take) study time, I like to investigate the sound of
chords , be it polychords or less diatonic sequences. If I can identify the sound of a polychord and get my ear very familiar with it, it can become part of my vocabulary. As a bassplayer, when I hear that type chord I have a good idea of what the harmony guy is thinking. I bet most guitar players who have a few years under their belt know the sound of the Dom7#9 chord thanks to Jimmy. It has a sound and whether they know the technical term or not, they know it's that Jimmy chord. The sound of it becomes part of their vocabulary. As the vocabulary becomes larger it's helpful to know what to call things.
There's a great steel drummer, Boogsie Sharp, who can spit back Charlie Parker, Dizzy, etc. type lines and harmony after hearing them once. I hear he can't tell you anything about what chords he's playing over, yet he's playing all these chord extensions. His ear has catalogued the sound of the lines and intervals I believe. He also has thousands of hours on his instrument. Guys like him are the exception and I bet they all share the fact that they've played more hours than most folks.
All that said (whew), IMO a great ear is the strongest asset, and if it comes with some curiosity and study habits as well, said person will be climbing the gig ladder quickly.
B.M. and M.M. in theory/composition. Upon entering college, I had great ears but was terrible at written theory and analysis, and my reading was so poor that I learned one of my audition pieces (Mozart D minor fantasia) off the record because it was easier than reading the score. I decided pretty quickly to major in theory so that I could grapple with my greatest weakness head on and either get past it or die fighting the good fight.
These days, I use theory in the practice room, but rarely (if ever) while performing. Others have said it here, but to me it's a way of understanding why what sounds good sounds good, which can be a very useful thing. To me, it's the interface between my eyes and my ears (or brain and ears), and while I always want my ears to guide me, knowing what tends to work and what doesn't can help me avoid quite a few dead ends. YMMV, as always.
Your ears should be your guide. If you can't hear what you want to play before you play it, you're just playing patterns IMO. 
And I say that with a strong theory background and a very good understanding of what I am doing and why I am doing it. But in the end I don't care what you call it as long as it sounds good.
And I say that with a strong theory background and a very good understanding of what I am doing and why I am doing it. But in the end I don't care what you call it as long as it sounds good.
To me I use my ear and feel/emotion and I'm completely content. Too me music is beyond "theory"... Listening is the most important thing IMO ..... I'm just saying what works for me...
Only scale I know is chromatic seems to be workn for me so far..
Some of the worlds greatest jazz musicians had no formal theory training..
Whatever works for you..
My point is that you can be an awesome musician whetehr u know theory or not because music is well beyond theory
Only scale I know is chromatic seems to be workn for me so far..
Some of the worlds greatest jazz musicians had no formal theory training..
Whatever works for you..
My point is that you can be an awesome musician whetehr u know theory or not because music is well beyond theory
Theory in its most simple definition is the nomenclature of music. It's not a set of rules, it is a dictionary of language.
This whole line of discussion is a little intellectually perilous, as "theory" is a defined concept and is what it is, while "feel" is an ambiguous word that means something different to everybody. But, I will attempt my two cents anyway:
This is pretty much a "chicken and the egg" argument.
Theory applies to everything, all the time -- whether you understand it or not. If you are playing by "feel," theory still applies, you are just applying theory without knowing the details. If you are playing while thinking in terms of theory, feel still applies. Theory is the intellectual while feel is the emotional. Both are present at all times. A blues player may have no idea he's demonstrating a pentatonic scale, but that's doesn't deny the fact that he is.
A well-educated theorist and musician can easily explain the theory behind any particular "feel" player's music. A "feel" player will hear and and interpret the "feel" of any particular demonstration of theory. If either musician is worth their salt, the listener won't know the difference.
This whole line of discussion is a little intellectually perilous, as "theory" is a defined concept and is what it is, while "feel" is an ambiguous word that means something different to everybody. But, I will attempt my two cents anyway:
This is pretty much a "chicken and the egg" argument.
Theory applies to everything, all the time -- whether you understand it or not. If you are playing by "feel," theory still applies, you are just applying theory without knowing the details. If you are playing while thinking in terms of theory, feel still applies. Theory is the intellectual while feel is the emotional. Both are present at all times. A blues player may have no idea he's demonstrating a pentatonic scale, but that's doesn't deny the fact that he is.
A well-educated theorist and musician can easily explain the theory behind any particular "feel" player's music. A "feel" player will hear and and interpret the "feel" of any particular demonstration of theory. If either musician is worth their salt, the listener won't know the difference.
I like Anthony Wellington's approach -
(No, it's not gonna Rickroll you, but the thought DID occur to me)
(No, it's not gonna Rickroll you, but the thought DID occur to me)
Who, for example?
No, it isn't. As the following clarifies...
It's really not an ego thing. I'll always have my feel (which I'm told is good). And, my playing - and my enjoyment of playing - is better from learning theory. It's that simple and the bottom line for me...
I have not met many people who don't know about chords and the circle of fifths in a long time.
It's something you pick up along the way unless you decide to stay ignorant.
It's not a big deal at all,and if you want to find yout about these things just do.
It WILL help you at some stage.
But there is really no feel "vs" theory in real life as I experience it.
The only people who think you can not have good feel as well as theoretical knowledge arein my experience usually those too lazy to study a bit.
both are important to eachother. feel with no theory is a lay up without a basketball. Theory without feel is an all star midget trying to dunk.
Here's a good article, that I don't agree completely with, but it has food for thought:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Can't agree with that. Ever see the Bass Extremes video. Victor knows theory, it's just plain wrong to mislead people like that.
And , YES, there is a right or wrong. If Someone calls out a CMa7 and you play C D G A..... Your wrong, no matter how good you think it feels or how much OTHERS tell you your great. CMa7 is C E G B every time. This is not open to interpretation. Opinions don't matter at all. It's black and white, there is a right and a wrong.
Again, I think those claiming everything is right and everything is ok and correct are simply lowering the bar enough so thay can claim they are as good as people who clearly do it not only differently, but in a more knowledgeable way.
Set a higher standard or soon we will be hearing that Guitar Hero theory is good enough to claim a university level masters in music.
-eSmith.
I never knew Wes Montgomery's ability to reharmonize a tune was born of ignorance of how standards work.
I did not know much theory, nor could I read until I was in my middle 20s. The biggest difference was that with those skills I could play with more people, and participate in a much richer and diverse musical world. In the senior year of my undergrad degree, I would sit in jazz theory at 9, play a Thad Jones chart at 2, Haydn at 5:30, then off to the gig at 8. That isn't everyone's cup of tea of course, but I like it, and it requires "feel and theory".
There is no excuse for not knowing or at least trying to learn theory. It cannot make you a worse player and will more than likely make you good. Most people who go on feel alone are potentially missing an entire tool set used for playing. Knowing theory will not somehow cripple your ability to play by ear or give music a good feel it will almost certainly compliment it.
This is an absolutely fantastic analogy... But, I'm a much better self-taught cook than I am a self-taught bass player... hehe.
The reason I don't know enough theory is simply due to laziness on my part. I'm gradually trying to turn my 15minute widdly-diddly / slap-fests into running through my cycle-of-fifths and practicing my scales and I already notice a difference in my comfort level making leaps around the fretboard... It makes the instinctive choices seem much much less "risky" when playing... (does that even make sense?)
Man. I love TB. A great place - just wish I'd explored more sooner.
Cheers all!
