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.
Why learn music?
- Thread starter Axtman
- Start date
I can't say I've delved into the deepest aspects of it. Certainly not enough to get a music degree(which I certainly don't feel is necessary). But I know the basics, triads, circle of fifths,scales, chord tones, chord construction, modes and which chords go with them. But I do tend to think of theory more as guidelines than set in stone rules.
I have never found it limiting, just a new way of understanding what I am doing. And I just don't think it will stifle any creativity, unless it IS stuck to too rigidly, without thinking about how and when the rules you've learned can be bent, broken or disregarded.
On the other hand, I certainly don't want to put anyone down if they don't feel they need it or want it. Many get by just fine without, and so did I, for some time.
It also depends on one's ambitions. Some gigs and/or studio work may very well require it.
I have never found it limiting, just a new way of understanding what I am doing. And I just don't think it will stifle any creativity, unless it IS stuck to too rigidly, without thinking about how and when the rules you've learned can be bent, broken or disregarded.
On the other hand, I certainly don't want to put anyone down if they don't feel they need it or want it. Many get by just fine without, and so did I, for some time.
It also depends on one's ambitions. Some gigs and/or studio work may very well require it.
Honestly I've never noticed anybody getting defensive about being a non-reader, unless somebody else is attacking them, which only seems to happen on Web forums. Attacking somebody, and then criticizing them for how they defend themselves, is one of the definitions of trolling.
I really want to be able to sight read. I need to get on it. I've been working on my ear training a lot and other aspects of theory which has done me a lot of good in being able to express myself musically. Reading is just another tool I'd like to have in my arsenal. It would only make me a stronger musician, I think.
I haven't encountered anyone being defensive about it either.
But if you're a musician, it's part of the language you should speak. Other systems of notation have severe limitations.
But if you're a musician, it's part of the language you should speak. Other systems of notation have severe limitations.
Theory makes new things easier to learn and easier to remember. If you like doing things the hard way, one way, then neglect learning the theory. Sure, some can do fine without it, but they often are inflexible in learning new ways to/new sounds/new inversions...new anything.
Read this:
http://www.studybass.com/lessons/basics/about-music-theory/
Read this:
http://www.studybass.com/lessons/basics/about-music-theory/
Did I say, "Every person who doesn't read/know theory is lazy"? A lot of lazy people do use the "but it will, like, kill my creativity man!" That's just reality.
Agreed, but I do expect a certain amount of efficacy from the musicians I play with. You don't have to be ABD in a music theory doctoral program, but you should be able to communicate some basic concepts like keys and time signatures. If I ask the guitarist what chords he or she is playing and the response is, "I don't know. I'm playing 1, 5, 6 and then back to the first fret," then I'm outta there. Does that make me snob? Perhaps, but I'd be hard pressed to find many busy musicians who wouldn't be frustrated by those situations.
It's all about the ease at which people can do it. My singer doesn't know a lick of theory but can still jam and even write some catchy stuff. That said, his lack of knowledge can make working with him extremely painful and time consuming for the rest of us in the band who know theory.
The amount of time it takes the rest of us to exchange complex musical ideas vs the time it takes him to to explain even the simplest of ideas is like comparing a fiber optic cable network to a dial-up modem. Sure the dial-up cable modem can get the job done, but there's going to be a lot of frustration, swearing, and banging of inanimate objects to get the job done
It has actually gotten to the point where we're going to take it upon ourselves to teach him theory whether he wants to learn it or not. There's simply no comparison between discussing musical ideas between those who speak the language and those who happen to be decent at faking their way through it.
I do not read but know a little simple music theory and can get around the fretboard, read chord charts, chord progressions, scales etc. Most of it came from simply playing music with others. I play with 3 guys who are all theory trained one advanced and reads for violin,cello...really anything.
We all get along well using normal musical terms and can call out songs on the fly say when the turnaround is coming etc. Allot of it is listening and grooving with a playe and time paling with them and experience..
I read an article when Billy Cox talked about when he first played with Hendrix. They asked him did Hendrix talk in chords/music terms and he said No man, he just played and we jammed and it was all good.
I will agree I don't like playing with someone who doe's not know what chords they are playing or use frets as numbers. You have have a basic knowledge of the fretboard and chord progression and build at least to get around playing with others but to dive face first into music theory is not always the way to go.
It always baffled me ...
You learn to read and write in english ... without it you couldn't work in this world and you would be very limited. I guess you learn a lot of stuff by reading about it etc...
it is the same thing
and if more people would know music theory and learn a little more about the history of music ... maybe we would see a rise in the quality of the music being played ... a lot of music is really dumb and simple ... almost like a child you learn to speak ... it is ok but at one point try to have a more meaningful discution ...
You learn to read and write in english ... without it you couldn't work in this world and you would be very limited. I guess you learn a lot of stuff by reading about it etc...
it is the same thing
and if more people would know music theory and learn a little more about the history of music ... maybe we would see a rise in the quality of the music being played ... a lot of music is really dumb and simple ... almost like a child you learn to speak ... it is ok but at one point try to have a more meaningful discution ...
Again I disagree in a way. I have worked with some truely talented people thru the years who could barely read or write. They performed mostly physical labor ...plastering, painter, mechanics, trademen. I learned allot from them when I was younger. today it would be tough to make it without reading and writing but some do.
So if all musicians would be theory trained we would have better music? No. Way back to the days they wore powdered wigs and we have had great music and not all were theory trained. Theory never will make music better as a culture but could help the performer.
Dumb and simple music always wins just go ask any prog or math rock band out there how they feel about simple songs ruling the charts. People just want a good beat and lyrics not wanking for 3 hours
Wow, another reading-vs-feel thread - really?
First of all, to straighten out metaphors. The literacy metaphor is perfectly appropriate, and standard notation is NOT a language, it is a writing system. Illiterate people can tell stories, pass along the news, even recite poetry and argue philosophy, without reading a single page. Musicians can play music without ever reading a note from a staff (or using any OTHER writing system). The language is not the writing, it is the music itself.
Of course, there are benefits to literacy, both in language and in music. I can tell a longer and more complex story by writing it up into a novel than if I tried to make it up orally or tell it in a version I had memorized (though you'd be amazed what oral storytellers can do in some cultures). I can access much greater depth of philosophical thought if I can read the books of long dead philosophers than if I depend on only the ideas people I have conversations with tell me. And likewise, in music, I will be able to do a lot more if I can interpret written music rather than relying on what I come up with out of my own head or what I can learn "orally."
Having said that, if someone wants to have a conversation with me, I don't ask him to write me a note. I listen to what he's saying and I talk back. If someone wants to jam with me, I don't ask for a sheet of written music, I listen to what he's playing and I play back.
I don't resist the idea of learning to read. I don't buy the myth that being able to read hinders your "feel" any more than reading books hinders your ability to talk. I can read, though a bit haltingly (I'm in Phalex's boat here, sounds like). But the fact is that, since I'm not a professional musician, and have no aspirations to be, I don't have call to read very much. Pretty much all the settings I play in, people just want to have conversations, and my oral language skills are all I need.
And that's all I have to say about that.
First of all, to straighten out metaphors. The literacy metaphor is perfectly appropriate, and standard notation is NOT a language, it is a writing system. Illiterate people can tell stories, pass along the news, even recite poetry and argue philosophy, without reading a single page. Musicians can play music without ever reading a note from a staff (or using any OTHER writing system). The language is not the writing, it is the music itself.
Of course, there are benefits to literacy, both in language and in music. I can tell a longer and more complex story by writing it up into a novel than if I tried to make it up orally or tell it in a version I had memorized (though you'd be amazed what oral storytellers can do in some cultures). I can access much greater depth of philosophical thought if I can read the books of long dead philosophers than if I depend on only the ideas people I have conversations with tell me. And likewise, in music, I will be able to do a lot more if I can interpret written music rather than relying on what I come up with out of my own head or what I can learn "orally."
Having said that, if someone wants to have a conversation with me, I don't ask him to write me a note. I listen to what he's saying and I talk back. If someone wants to jam with me, I don't ask for a sheet of written music, I listen to what he's playing and I play back.
I don't resist the idea of learning to read. I don't buy the myth that being able to read hinders your "feel" any more than reading books hinders your ability to talk. I can read, though a bit haltingly (I'm in Phalex's boat here, sounds like). But the fact is that, since I'm not a professional musician, and have no aspirations to be, I don't have call to read very much. Pretty much all the settings I play in, people just want to have conversations, and my oral language skills are all I need.
And that's all I have to say about that.
- Jan 12, 2011
- 4,578
- 2,460
- Disclosures
- Artist, Trickfish Amplification Bartolini Emerging Artist, MTD Kingston Emerging Artist. Artist, Tsunami Cables
I look at it the other way around. It's not rocket science so why hate on someone who may be more talented, have better chops, and be a better player just because they can't read or know as much theory. Because it kinda throws all that theory crap out the window. It puzzles me how a person can go to school all those years to play in essence covers. Hint classical and jazz. There is no shame in my game. I had formal lessons and studied the Simandl Method and also used a book by Paul Hindemith for reading rhythms etc. In January I start lessons with international jazz bassist Tyron Brown. But at the end of the day all that stuff still didn'tt teach me to play the way I can today. I learned by ear and by sight and by going out and seeing how other players do their thing. I'm not a purist and not a hater. I am a music lover and music belongs to us all not only to those who can read or know theory out the ying yang. A common lay person can write a hit song or a beautiful song or whatever. Stop HATIN y'ALL lol!!!!
Again I disagree in a way. I have worked with some truely talented people thru the years who could barely read or write. They performed mostly physical labor ...plastering, painter, mechanics, trademen. I learned allot from them when I was younger. today it would be tough to make it without reading and writing but some do.
So if all musicians would be theory trained we would have better music? No. Way back to the days they wore powdered wigs and we have had great music and not all were theory trained. Theory never will make music better as a culture but could help the performer.
Dumb and simple music always wins just go ask any prog or math rock band out there how they feel about simple songs ruling the charts. People just want a good beat and lyrics not wanking for 3 hours
But the quality of music was way higher during that time. Now you can do 8th note in 4/4 for 4 minutes on bass and with chords on guitar and call that music made by and music illeterate ... then you listen to Chopin who wasn't formally trained ... it is another game completly ...
Since classical musician when the direction of serialism and the jazz in the bebop and freejazz ... the quality of music really declined fast, it went dumber and dumber and more and more marketed like any fast food would be.
So yes I think that the more you know musical theory the more you will be inclined to write music that use more complex stuff. It open your mind !!!
You make some great points, and I think that your music-as-a-conversation analogy is valid as long as you recognize that it only describes a subset of the ways that people make music.
