It's a tool, that's all. It doesn't describe everything. You just have to internalize the applications to the point of it being your nature in order for it to be really useful, or else it just gets in the way. It's not a solution, but an understanding of how to travel the path.
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.
What is theory?
- Thread starter Raiven
- Start date
OK
. I will take a shot at this too; first of all, the question is kind of like asking "what is religion", or "what is grammar". In fact, I like the analogy: theory is to music as grammar is to language. It is the study of the many components of music, and the rules that govern various ways that composers have combined tones.
These rules might have to do with immutable laws of nature (physics, acoustics, etc), but also reveal a fascinating history of aesthetic choices. Machaut, Bach, Schoenberg, and Zawinul all used the same 12 tones, but certainly worked within vastly different theoretical spheres.
Theory provides us with means to discuss any type of music (assuming it is constructed with our 12 tones in equal temperament heritage). So, jazz theory, 12-tone theory, baroque theory, all use the same alphabet and can be described, or analyzed, using a more-or-less common body of nomenclature. Whew . Im sleepy
These rules might have to do with immutable laws of nature (physics, acoustics, etc), but also reveal a fascinating history of aesthetic choices. Machaut, Bach, Schoenberg, and Zawinul all used the same 12 tones, but certainly worked within vastly different theoretical spheres.
Theory provides us with means to discuss any type of music (assuming it is constructed with our 12 tones in equal temperament heritage). So, jazz theory, 12-tone theory, baroque theory, all use the same alphabet and can be described, or analyzed, using a more-or-less common body of nomenclature. Whew . Im sleepy
I don't think theory can kill music, nor is theory seperate from music. If the definition of theory were 'unnecessarily complex stuff' (which it probably is to some people), then it might, but it isn't. The purpose of theory has always been musicality.
There are many tools with which we can try to understand what we hear. Why does V or V7 sound like it wants to go back to I? Knowing why can help us know how and when it might be appropriate to apply a V chord, creating the expectation of I whether or not we move there (or doing something else with it entirely). This is just one example of how theory can be useful.
Theory isn't a bunch or rules and it doesn't exist for the sake of making the music more complex. It's always guided by the composer's ear. Theory has never done anything but help me create progressions and melodies that sound good. By knowing some basic theory, I have an idea of how I can harmonize a melody before I play a note, so I don't waste time groping around in the dark for something that might work. I also get ideas of unusual approaches to use. My improvistation makes more sense and sounds more musical when I have an idea of what's going on and how notes lead to and interact with other notes. If I create a dissonance, I'll want to understand how to resolve it in order to make the next note choice (whether I do resolve it or not is a choice that I can make from there, depending on what sounds good).
Working without theory often ends up as a reinvention of the wheel. A lot of people now have a romantic notion that theory will only kill their musicality and their muse (I'm not talking about anyone on this board). I understand where that's coming from, but I think it's a misunderstanding of what theory is and what it can do to help. I had a bandleader who told me that theory would limit her when she wrote music, that it would destroy her individuality. In reality, she only ever played standard chord progressions and melodies, often sounding almost exactly like a song she knew or heard on the radio. It isn't as if this is a bad thing, and I'm not trying to imply it is, but it does show some flaws in her reasoning that, without theory, she is more original.
It's my hypothesis that theory would actually open up her options and allow her to create something that really is hers, or at least something that doesn't sound exactly like what she's listening to on the radio, unless she wanted it to. She'd probably also use some non-power chords occassionally as well, but she'd need a little theory in order to know which ones might 'go together' to achieve the sound she wants.
I guess I'm just trying to say that there are no rules, just ideas.
There are many tools with which we can try to understand what we hear. Why does V or V7 sound like it wants to go back to I? Knowing why can help us know how and when it might be appropriate to apply a V chord, creating the expectation of I whether or not we move there (or doing something else with it entirely). This is just one example of how theory can be useful.
Theory isn't a bunch or rules and it doesn't exist for the sake of making the music more complex. It's always guided by the composer's ear. Theory has never done anything but help me create progressions and melodies that sound good. By knowing some basic theory, I have an idea of how I can harmonize a melody before I play a note, so I don't waste time groping around in the dark for something that might work. I also get ideas of unusual approaches to use. My improvistation makes more sense and sounds more musical when I have an idea of what's going on and how notes lead to and interact with other notes. If I create a dissonance, I'll want to understand how to resolve it in order to make the next note choice (whether I do resolve it or not is a choice that I can make from there, depending on what sounds good).
Working without theory often ends up as a reinvention of the wheel. A lot of people now have a romantic notion that theory will only kill their musicality and their muse (I'm not talking about anyone on this board). I understand where that's coming from, but I think it's a misunderstanding of what theory is and what it can do to help. I had a bandleader who told me that theory would limit her when she wrote music, that it would destroy her individuality. In reality, she only ever played standard chord progressions and melodies, often sounding almost exactly like a song she knew or heard on the radio. It isn't as if this is a bad thing, and I'm not trying to imply it is, but it does show some flaws in her reasoning that, without theory, she is more original.
It's my hypothesis that theory would actually open up her options and allow her to create something that really is hers, or at least something that doesn't sound exactly like what she's listening to on the radio, unless she wanted it to. She'd probably also use some non-power chords occassionally as well, but she'd need a little theory in order to know which ones might 'go together' to achieve the sound she wants.
I guess I'm just trying to say that there are no rules, just ideas.
Tom said:
+1 I think that little blurb helped clarify the definition of theory a little more for me. I'm all for theory and learning it and I appreciate reasons why it's good to know. Gives it justification.
I agree with the roadmap analogy completely. Music theory, from top to bottom, is a way to think about music that doesn't rely purely on the landmarks you can make out. To explain the metaphor, landmarks would be the notes you're sounding at any given time. Just like a road map lets you take a step back and see the big picture to decide your route, theory lets you look at where you've been and where you're going in a way that doesn't rely on your hazy memories of what you heard or your predictions of what you will hear. By putting names to things, you can know them, and by writing them down, you get the equivalent of a road map. It won't tell you where to go, but if you know where you're going, it can tell you a lot about the situation.
I believe any cover playing bassist should learn at least the natural major scale and the aeolian mode (natural minor) . It makes it a lot easy when you're learning a song you've never heard and you can ask you guitar player in what key it is . 
I like Arnold Schoenberg's repeated insistence in his Harmonielehre that all rules are to be broken later once the student is advanced enough. Also his derivation of everything from the physical nature of soundwaves.
Fundamentally, musical theory is not really prescriptive--IOW, its basic purpose is not to tell you what to play. It's meant to tell you how certain things work. In this way, it helps you understand principles underlying musical events that may appear complex, thereby clarifying your understanding of them.
It also helps you create similar events when you want to. For instance, if you understand what Charlie Parker does in a rhythm changes solo, you can understand how to create a similar effect in your own solo. If you know that this particular harsh sound you hear is a tritone, you know to use a tritone when you want to make that harsh sound yourself.
What theory does not do is tell you what is good or bad.
It also helps you create similar events when you want to. For instance, if you understand what Charlie Parker does in a rhythm changes solo, you can understand how to create a similar effect in your own solo. If you know that this particular harsh sound you hear is a tritone, you know to use a tritone when you want to make that harsh sound yourself.
What theory does not do is tell you what is good or bad.
