As far as I can tell every subdivision of every rhythm and note change can be explained through theory so there's really no rules you can break I mean unless were talking about playing in a traditional style
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 playing by intuition?
- Thread starter 6stringvince
- Start date
Theory is great. It can put some form to otherwise abstract music stuff and give you a common language to communicate with other similarly trained cats. I use it as a mental shorthand to remember the details when I am writing. When it comes to playing in a group or improv, I play by feel and experimentation (I never put together some theory in my head to generate an awesome bass line or fill, aside from the basic parameters).
To the OP- I think it all just boils down to how much time/effort/heart you want to put into your study of the instrument. There a million valid areas of learning/experience/specialization to choose from in music, and a lot of us only have so much time to work on it.
I think you are on the right track. You have the basics down (modes are no biggy, you can pick up the concept in a few minutes if you sit down... the rest is muscle memory IMO) and are advancing yourself doing what you like. That's probably enough for now. I would focus more on general technique and the physical sides of playing that allow you to control and express yourself on the instrument better... at least for now.
With all of that said, I've never had a breakthrough on bass from studying some theory, only from practicing a lot.
To the OP- I think it all just boils down to how much time/effort/heart you want to put into your study of the instrument. There a million valid areas of learning/experience/specialization to choose from in music, and a lot of us only have so much time to work on it.
I think you are on the right track. You have the basics down (modes are no biggy, you can pick up the concept in a few minutes if you sit down... the rest is muscle memory IMO) and are advancing yourself doing what you like. That's probably enough for now. I would focus more on general technique and the physical sides of playing that allow you to control and express yourself on the instrument better... at least for now.
With all of that said, I've never had a breakthrough on bass from studying some theory, only from practicing a lot.
Except for a year of formal study, Jaco was self-taught but put the time and effort in learning not only theory but how to arrange and write.
As a professional musician and educator (1 degree in music ed, 1 degree in performance), why does it have to be one or the other? I use both theory and intuition. And creativity and intuition are also just skills that need to be cultivated.
A poster talks about people not knowing theory but then says they know scales... Um, that's music theory!!
I happen to love theory and took many extra classes in it such as Bach counterpoint, Schenkerian analyses, many jazz classes, and 20th century theory, in addition to the 4 semesters of standard Western music / classical theory.
These have never hindered my creativity or ability to jam. Many cases it opens up doors as oftentimes when a band gets in a rut, I revert to my theory knowledge and think of cool chords that would work - borrowed minors, Neapolitans, Augments 6th chords (not to be confused with the plain +6 interval).....
Above all, it is music, so use your ears. If it sounds good, it is good.
A poster talks about people not knowing theory but then says they know scales... Um, that's music theory!!
I happen to love theory and took many extra classes in it such as Bach counterpoint, Schenkerian analyses, many jazz classes, and 20th century theory, in addition to the 4 semesters of standard Western music / classical theory.
These have never hindered my creativity or ability to jam. Many cases it opens up doors as oftentimes when a band gets in a rut, I revert to my theory knowledge and think of cool chords that would work - borrowed minors, Neapolitans, Augments 6th chords (not to be confused with the plain +6 interval).....
Above all, it is music, so use your ears. If it sounds good, it is good.
I don't see them as differing - I see them as complementary. Using your personal creativity and intuition (or whatever you'd like to call it) is fine and dandy but having knowledge of theory just takes that existing creativity and expands it to new horizons.
I don't see how knowledge can do anything but add to one's creative toolbox.
I don't see how knowledge can do anything but add to one's creative toolbox.
I think the vast majority of people who claim to be self taught are anything but. A year of formal study = not self taught in my book. Kind of like when you hear a defendant say, "I participated in that one robbery but I'm not a criminal." Yes you are.
Yup! I like these "He doesn't know theory, just chords and scales." Um yeah, guess what the first year of music theory classes are? (Ok that and lots of 4 part harmony analysis)
People like any excuse they can to be lazy and not put in the work but still believe they can "get there". That might be true for a very small percentile of the population but most people have to put the work in.
^^ That's good. I was trying to be more polite.... But knowing theory helps me when writing songs... I can "hear and demo" chords and cadences in my head before playing them and pick the desired effect.
There's theory and then there's theory...
Everybody knows what a I-IV-IV progression sounds like even if they don't know what the numbers stand for.
My ears recognize intervals, triads, popular progressions and cadences but I'd have to get my old books out to remember what a Neopolitan 6th chord is. Do I use the circle of 5ths? Not really. I don't have to face sheet music for what I do.
So maybe it boils down to knowing enough to do what you do. The theory I learned that I don't use, I forgot. Learned some Japanese along the way too and the same thing happened.
Car keys I have to remember. Music keys I can generally trust to my ears and fingering patterns.
Everybody knows what a I-IV-IV progression sounds like even if they don't know what the numbers stand for.
My ears recognize intervals, triads, popular progressions and cadences but I'd have to get my old books out to remember what a Neopolitan 6th chord is. Do I use the circle of 5ths? Not really. I don't have to face sheet music for what I do.
So maybe it boils down to knowing enough to do what you do. The theory I learned that I don't use, I forgot. Learned some Japanese along the way too and the same thing happened.
Car keys I have to remember. Music keys I can generally trust to my ears and fingering patterns.
DiabolusInMusic
Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism
Seriously, this statement made me openly laugh out loud.
I give you exhibit A. Nicholas Slonimksy's Thesaurus Of Scales And Melodic Patterns. I like many of you probably do, own this book, I would LOVE to see somebody with no grasp of music theory look at this book, let alone try to get an idea of what is going on within it.
Exhibit B) I believe it is in the Jaco book by Bill Milkowski, but I could be wrong on the source, somebody who had studied with Jaco remembers being extremely blown away by the diminished stuff Jaco was applying. How could Jaco know this, know it is diminished, and know how to explain where it can be practically applied without theory?
I rest my case.
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
Totally cosign that. The way my theory teacher explained it to me when I learned writing, counterpoint, natural chord progressions, and figured bass: It's like being a painter. Each skill is a new color. You can be a very expressive painter, but how much can you express with one or two colors? Why wouldn't you want some new ones.
Theory? What is "theory"?
I define theory as "shortcuts to understanding from experienced musicians."
To use a non-music analogy: If you are a naturally-gifted baseball player, keep grinding out at-bats, and eventually you'll learn to hit the fastball. But then one day Derek Jeter whispers in your ear, "don't swing at the breaking ball; wait on a fastball middle-in," and overnight, your batting average shoots up 50 points. That's what I mean by "theory."
I saw an interesting video once, of a masterclass with (jazz guitarist) Joe Pass. During Q&A one of the students asked "How do you know what to play on a ii-V-I progression?" and Mr. Pass answered, "What's that?"
After some laughter by the students he continue, "Oh, you probably mean like Dmin, G7, CMaj... yeah, that's not how I think about it," and he continues the lesson from there. My point being, it's a common logical fallacy to assume that, because a piece of theory accurately describes what we hear in a song, that piece of theory was what was going on inside the head of the musician when they recorded that song. In truth they might have been thinking something else entirely (or not thinking at all) and the fact that the theory fits is a coincidence.
I "learn theory" myself and recommend that my students "learn theory," but to be blunt, less than 25% of that theory is scales, chords, modes that people normally think of as theory. The kind of theory I am most interested in is the theory of songs, which is to understand why some songs are #1 hits, why some songs are flops, why some songs sound alike, why good singers and bands sound unique, why certain bass players keep getting hired, etc.
To bring the baseball analogy full circle, I'd like to imagine that, if I were a rookie big-league ballplayer lucky enough to be mentored by Jeter, he wouldn't waste his time explaining things like "hit the ball with your bat" or "now run to 1st base" but rather high-level theory like "this is how to foul off a pitch so you spoil the changeup" or "don't steal on him, he has a quick release" or "here's what to do in the 9th with the game on the line." Similarly, in music, I think a lot of non-theoretical players misunderstand what "theory" actually means and believe it's limited to modes, scales, etc. that you learn once and move on, rather than larger musical concepts like dynamics, tension and release, orchestration/instrumentation, telling a story/creating a narrative, developing your own sound/style, etc.
I define theory as "shortcuts to understanding from experienced musicians."
To use a non-music analogy: If you are a naturally-gifted baseball player, keep grinding out at-bats, and eventually you'll learn to hit the fastball. But then one day Derek Jeter whispers in your ear, "don't swing at the breaking ball; wait on a fastball middle-in," and overnight, your batting average shoots up 50 points. That's what I mean by "theory."
I saw an interesting video once, of a masterclass with (jazz guitarist) Joe Pass. During Q&A one of the students asked "How do you know what to play on a ii-V-I progression?" and Mr. Pass answered, "What's that?"
After some laughter by the students he continue, "Oh, you probably mean like Dmin, G7, CMaj... yeah, that's not how I think about it," and he continues the lesson from there. My point being, it's a common logical fallacy to assume that, because a piece of theory accurately describes what we hear in a song, that piece of theory was what was going on inside the head of the musician when they recorded that song. In truth they might have been thinking something else entirely (or not thinking at all) and the fact that the theory fits is a coincidence.I "learn theory" myself and recommend that my students "learn theory," but to be blunt, less than 25% of that theory is scales, chords, modes that people normally think of as theory. The kind of theory I am most interested in is the theory of songs, which is to understand why some songs are #1 hits, why some songs are flops, why some songs sound alike, why good singers and bands sound unique, why certain bass players keep getting hired, etc.
To bring the baseball analogy full circle, I'd like to imagine that, if I were a rookie big-league ballplayer lucky enough to be mentored by Jeter, he wouldn't waste his time explaining things like "hit the ball with your bat" or "now run to 1st base" but rather high-level theory like "this is how to foul off a pitch so you spoil the changeup" or "don't steal on him, he has a quick release" or "here's what to do in the 9th with the game on the line." Similarly, in music, I think a lot of non-theoretical players misunderstand what "theory" actually means and believe it's limited to modes, scales, etc. that you learn once and move on, rather than larger musical concepts like dynamics, tension and release, orchestration/instrumentation, telling a story/creating a narrative, developing your own sound/style, etc.
I'm classically trained but one of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a teacher about soloing was this: "Just playing anything! If it sounds bad, don't do it again"
Yes, a gross over simplification but a great concept to have in the back of your mind regardless of your level of training.
Yes, a gross over simplification but a great concept to have in the back of your mind regardless of your level of training.
First off, I agree with alot of what has been said: Most talented musicians understand quite a bit of music theory, even if they don't have the vocabulary. So I'm going to refer mostly to vocabulary.
Some people can't be bothered to learn the vocabulary and that is fine, but it does present challenges when working with others just like not speaking the same language presents communication challenges if you, for example, visit another country.
I had a teacher(film, not music) once who said something along the lines of "Studying is generally considered work, or something you have to do, rather than want to do. However, the more you know about something, the more enjoyable it can be." Sometime later, she used a clip of a movie that I had always liked - the Graduate - to show how camera work can convey as much as dialog or actors expressions. Near the end, after is Alfa Romeo breaks down, Benjamin has to run to stop Elaine from getting married. Now, I never consciously noticed this before doing some film studies, but he seems to run forever, but doesn't get anywhere. Hoffman was filmed from a great distance with a zoom lens which "flattens" our depth perception. Watching him work so hard and not get anywhere helps us feel the characters frustration. Intrinsically, I knew this, but once I learned WHY, I liked the movie, and that scene in particular, much more. And this is something I can share with other people. There were other films that I never really liked. Some, after closer inspection turned out to be pretty good on a technical level, even if they don't speak to me personally. Others movies I didn't like, I might be able to say specifically why it is that I don't like them.
So, I think you should do what you enjoy. For me, the more I understand something, the more I am able to communicate(even if no one wants to listen), the more enjoyable it is.
And the more things there are to enjoy, or if you don't enjoy them, you can "riding the root is pretty dull".
Some people can't be bothered to learn the vocabulary and that is fine, but it does present challenges when working with others just like not speaking the same language presents communication challenges if you, for example, visit another country.
I had a teacher(film, not music) once who said something along the lines of "Studying is generally considered work, or something you have to do, rather than want to do. However, the more you know about something, the more enjoyable it can be." Sometime later, she used a clip of a movie that I had always liked - the Graduate - to show how camera work can convey as much as dialog or actors expressions. Near the end, after is Alfa Romeo breaks down, Benjamin has to run to stop Elaine from getting married. Now, I never consciously noticed this before doing some film studies, but he seems to run forever, but doesn't get anywhere. Hoffman was filmed from a great distance with a zoom lens which "flattens" our depth perception. Watching him work so hard and not get anywhere helps us feel the characters frustration. Intrinsically, I knew this, but once I learned WHY, I liked the movie, and that scene in particular, much more. And this is something I can share with other people. There were other films that I never really liked. Some, after closer inspection turned out to be pretty good on a technical level, even if they don't speak to me personally. Others movies I didn't like, I might be able to say specifically why it is that I don't like them.
So, I think you should do what you enjoy. For me, the more I understand something, the more I am able to communicate(even if no one wants to listen), the more enjoyable it is.
And the more things there are to enjoy, or if you don't enjoy them, you can "riding the root is pretty dull".
This is the point I was trying to make earlier. You don't have to think about it once you know it. When you speak, you aren't thinking about what the subject is and what the verb is...you just speak because you learned something so well that you don't have to think about it.
However, when you are a student, you have to think this way. You may end up sounding square, but once someone 'gets it,' they can start to forget and just play.
Also, learning theory puts sounds in your head. At the beginning, you may think 'ok, I'll play a diminished scale a half step up from the dominant chord.' Once you get it in your head, you can start hearing these things without thinking about what you are actually doing.
One of my teachers told me that he used to practise soloing while reading a newspaper. Seemed like a cool concept.
I studied classical piano for 12 years including sitting every formal exam that was available at the time. It was a longggggg time ago but I don't think I'm being an ass in saying I had a sound theory base.
Now, with my bass, I just pick it up and play. The only time I think in terms of theory is communicating notes, chords and times to colleagues. Some of those colleagues have no formal training but manage to communicate perfectly well.
In fairness, I'm not exactly performing toccatas and fugues on my bass.
I think that rather than 'theory' we might perhaps refer simply to 'knowledge'. You acquire what you need. If lack of knowledge impedes progress you acquire more or else plateau.
Having said which, was it Miles Davis (??) who said something along the lines of "Master your instrument, learn your craft, then forget it and just play.
Mike
Now, with my bass, I just pick it up and play. The only time I think in terms of theory is communicating notes, chords and times to colleagues. Some of those colleagues have no formal training but manage to communicate perfectly well.
In fairness, I'm not exactly performing toccatas and fugues on my bass.
I think that rather than 'theory' we might perhaps refer simply to 'knowledge'. You acquire what you need. If lack of knowledge impedes progress you acquire more or else plateau.
Having said which, was it Miles Davis (??) who said something along the lines of "Master your instrument, learn your craft, then forget it and just play.
Mike
