cheddatom

I see! I've only used a volume pedal on guitar, and I did this to control the gain on a distortion pedal. It never occurred to me that people would want to turn down their distorted sound without reducing the gain.

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='156630' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:58 AM']in spite of all this, his music still sounds like nothing you've ever heard before[/quote] This guy sounds interesting, can we have a link or something? Your post was very good! I need to take a break from this thread for today or i'll get shouted at for not getting any work done!

Obviously knowing theory doesn't stop you from experimenting with different notes and scales which aren't even described as such by theory. However, to do that you wouldn't need to know any theory either. A person who knows theory MIGHT stick to what they know and have learned as the correct way of doing things and/or the way things have always been done. A person who knows no theory would not be able to stick to standard scales and the like, because they wouldn't know what they are. I'm not saying people shouldn't learn and use music theory. I'm speculating on it's effects upon creativity and development as a musician as a whole.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='156607' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:30 AM']Which is learning theory. Call it 'that thing I play in that song' or call it 'E minor pentatonic', you're still organising musical knowledge in a theoretical way. Having a name that other people understand helps you communicate your idea with other people.[/quote] But if you learn in that way, you might develop weird new scales and shapes, which are combinations of what theory already describes but sound like a totally new style. Just one possibility? In reply to the post before, maybe no-one actually said "stupid" but it was the impression I got from comments like "is entirely illogical to choose to ignore beneficial information" Reading too much into things I guess?

[quote name='dlloyd' post='156591' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:15 AM']A player who genuinely has no theory would just be playing random notes of random length at random times. That would be pretty unconventional in a musician, but I probably wouldn't ask him to join my band.[/quote] The player couldn't hear what they were playing and learn from that? Oh, those notes sounded nice, where were they? Oh, this run of notes seems to form a shape, and I can use that shape with this different song as well. That note sounded crap, I wont use that with that chord again.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156583' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:06 AM']I have said in earlier posts "not exclusively" there are exceptions that prove the rule. If you are musical no amount of practice will hinder that, if you are not musical an amount of practice can, to an extent, cover that. Added to that, a great performer will make music out of anything. (unmusical technical regimes included)[/quote] I think earlier other people were saying and/or implying that it would be stupid to ignore music theory and unmusical technical regimes. Where this may be true for people who are struggling with getting to grips with an instrument or music in general or just average students (you know 'cos you've taught them!), it's certainly not true in EVERY situation. When you say it's only a very small minority of players who can progress without these things, I suppose i should trust your judgment on that, but I really didn't think that was the case when I started rambling on.

I think I prefer him with a jazz goatee.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156569' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:53 AM']Oh yes, and I'm giving you my opinions (and accepting yours) on what I am able to deduce from your line of reasoning. I have taught literally hundreds of people to play bass guitar and double bass from school age through degree courses and up to retirement age. And believe me I've heard many arguments, some compelling and some spurious.[/quote] So after all that experience you're totally convinced that to be a great bassist, you need to learn theory, and practice technical regimes which may not always be musical? If the answer is yes, then I guess I have to give in to the experience really. I'm way to young to have settled on my opinions and I have to predict that I will eventually come around to your way of thinking. Just to be clear - I'm not lazy or procrastinating or making excuses or whatever. I put a lot of effort into my music and i'm constantly learning and developing. I may not be practicing uber-technical routines every night, and I certainly can't read music, and I have no desire to re-learn any theory, but this doesn't mean that i'm ignoring everything that has gone before me, and it doesn't mean i'm lazy.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156560' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:38 AM']It seems to me that you will employ any answer you can come up with, to avoid taking on board hundreds of years of very successful refinement of musical developement, some of which has been devised by the likes of people you would seemingly aspire to be able to match for musical ability. By my judgement in a learning sense this puts you at a distinct disadvantage to those that do the work without procrastination, prevarication and refusal to accept the validity of systems that have existed for more than a hundred of your lifetimes.[/quote] No, I was genuinley just answering your post. I don't get why a technical practice regime that uses motor skill A and B would be better than a melodic bassline that uses motor skill A and B. I really don't get it! I have never refused to accept the validity of music theory! I accept it for what it is. All I am saying is "I wonder if we really need it" or, would a player who didn't have it be a less conventional player? Does less conventional mean good? Do you have to be able to play harder things than you actually need to to be a good player? etc etc etc. We're just discussing stuff aren't we?

[quote name='Paul_C' post='156558' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:36 AM']So you're suggesting playing EVERY melody in every position ? Sounds like a late night to me ..[/quote] I obviously have no idea of what these technical practice regimes consist of! If you do one practice routine to develop a certain kind of movement for a while, you'll have improved using that movement. If you practice a melody for a while that uses the same movement you should also improve by the same amount? I don't get why you would need to practice an infinite number of peices to match the attainment acheivable by these technical practice regimes. Like I say though, it seems I don't know what i'm on about.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156552' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:28 AM']I think possibly not as melodies are limited by the motor movements that are required to play them whereas execises have all the possibles in them to give even usage to each movement. Thats why study books exist and in the classical tradition (DB for me) exercises are interspersed with melodies that use the movements you've been practising and sometimes combine the two.[/quote] If there are melodies that use the movements you've been practising then IMHO you should have been practising those melodies in the first place.

[quote name='Paul_C' post='156544' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:19 AM']Exactly. I mentioned in another thread the Billy Sheehan clinic at the Bass Institute, where he showed us a few exercises he does regularly, pointing out that they're not for use on stage, as they don't sound particularly musical, but they are good for building up muscle memory to use to play, in his case, quick, melodic lines.[/quote] Yeh but wouldn't he do just as well practising his quick melodic lines? What's the point in non-musical practice when you can do musical practice?

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156506' date='Mar 13 2008, 09:32 AM']Maybe not quite understood, performed yes. But those that can do it to astonishing levels without study are not the norm, and probably not the best examples to hold up as models of how to do it. (and probably just devise their own methods) I think those unusual individuals are often prodigious and it seems to me, quite competent, or even brilliant by the time they realise there is theory to be learned. If you are not making those around you stare open mouthed at your ability to play within a year or two of getting the instrument into your sweaty palms, then you're probably going to have to knuckle down like the rest of us.[/quote] Why not quite understood? What is there to understand other than what can be heard?

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='156417' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:57 PM']Kinda gave up on all this TBH. The thing is, learning theory and practicing lots will make you a better player, better able to work with others of a similar level of theory and practice. Whether you want/need/can be arsed to work on theory and practice is up to you, just dont try and justify your lack of effort, theory and practie with bs.[/quote] Is that directed at me? I never tried to justify my lack of effort theory or practice. I might be talking BS but that's just your opinion. [quote name='aryustailm' post='156452' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:00 AM']How could it not? I never understand this anti-theory mentality. Its like saying you could always speak coherantly with your own ideas when you were a toddler. Obviously that isn't the case for anyone, and music is no different - You learn how to talk first (by imitation) then you realise why the things you are copying work, and can start to put together your own statements/ideas. Most people learn by listening and copying, and figure out how to use it for themselves instinctively. Some people figure out the intricate workings of the language, whether that's english or music, to understand how to say things more effectively without ums....errss.....or bum notes: they're the same thing. I don't see how knowing more about your chosen language/music could do anything other than make you better at getting your thoughts/music across?! Also, remember bass is just a tool to make music. You can't have bass without having music. You can have music without a bass. Getting better at music makes you a better musician.[/quote] So did learning English at school make you better at speaking it? It didn't for me. I did try to learn Spanish at school, but I found it very difficult. However, I honestly believe that if I had done a Spanish exchange for 3 months, without ever having learned the language, I would have been able to speak it and with far more authenticity than if I had learned in a classroom from an English guy. [quote name='aryustailm' post='156452' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:00 AM']Theory is only to understand music that has ALREADY been made - it should never dictate how music SHOULD be made. But, understanding your favourite music means you can choose to invoke something similar, or choose otherwise. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want the choice?![/quote] It should never dictate how music should be made - but does it? Maybe subconsciously, or maybe only the worst composers let it happen. I totally accept your point, but I honestly think that music can be understood to as proficient a level without any theory at all. When i'm listening to music and analysing it in my head, I don't once wonder what that chord's called, or what time signature this is etc. I have no problem communicating my ideas about music without using the language of music. So basically, you can still have the choice that you're talking about, but without the theory. Queen - I will borrow my guitarist's copy of Kant's "Critique of Judgement" and give it a read.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156110' date='Mar 12 2008, 03:57 PM']I'm going to stick my neck out and say yes, since I can only utilise my own subjectivity to comment on what I consider sh*t or brilliant and anywhere inbetween. We live in an age where we have to pussy foot around for fear of upsetting the sensibilities of one person or another. Adds up to homogeny to me and I'd rather have a bit of rough and tumble, that's why I often enjoy BigBeefChief posts. He says it and be damned and lives up to it. Even when (as I often do) I disagree with him.[/quote] OK, but you are building subjectivity into your answer. Of course some of us will think one bass player is sh*t and another sh*t-hot. We all have different opinions. If this is the case then how is it possible to become better, other than within your own subjectivity? For example, I might have a friend who loves really sloppyily played basslines with plenty of bum notes. In my opinion, i'd have to get worse to get better in his opinion. Bearing all that in mind, how is it possible to say "learning music theory makes you a better bass player"? I admit i'm being a bit of a tw@ now, but as I said to you before, i'm an argumentative f*cker [quote name='jakesbass' post='156171' date='Mar 12 2008, 04:34 PM']I think that's well said[/quote] +1 that was a great post BigD There have been loads of really good posts in the discussion, and I have been changing my mind all day long! I think Bilbo struck home when he said "We are the sum total of our experiences and those experiences aren't only our practice schedule; it is also our listening." Which is totally true. If you take what I was saying earlier, and apply listening instead of practicing techniques/learning theory then it's entirely impossible for anyone who's ever listened to music to create something as original/unconventional as I was talking about. I'll see how my drumming goes, but (as I already have an RSI in my wrist) I may well buy a couple of lessons.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='155993' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:19 PM']I have to agree that I think the not learning theory to maintain creativity argument is moribund. It is nothing more that a justification that allows individuals to watching more tv without feeling guilty. Of course uneducated polayers are capable of being creative - its part of the human condition. But, if you give 1,000 monkies typewriters.... Sorry, that was facetious but I accept that many uneducated players have done some great things but relying on pure inspiration without perspiration is like relying on a lottery win to feed yourself - you may be lucky but I wouldn't want to rely on it. In simple terms, to suggest that not doing something improves your playing is, in my view, anathema.[/quote] .....I don't think that was really facetious, I actually said that to myself at some point while trying to construct a post! I never said you wouldn't need any perspiration! I'm just wondering out loud if a player who knew no theory could be as good as a player who knows all theory, but then I have kind of blurred the lines between theory and technique in my head, as queenofthedepths pointed out. I suppose I started out thinking "you can be a great player without being technical", which is obvious. Then I meant to say that in my opinion a "less technical" player is a better player. Then people were saying that if you are capable of very technical playing, but don't actually use it, you will be better at playing less technical stuff. I disagree with that, in that someone who decides to do so could become the worlds best player of simple basslines, and come accross better (to me) than a very technical player, just by practicing his simple basslines. Somewhere along the line I got confused and started talking about theory as well. I was suggesting that maybe you don't need to know any more music theory than what you can learn by playing your instrument, and playing with other people, and that maybe this would lead to an unconventional style of playing. Teaching people to play within convention will be far quicker using the conventions, obviously. Maybe the conventions of modern music technique and theory encompass everything that's possible within music, but I would like to think not. I would like to know what would happen if you gave a child a bass, and an amp, and left them completely alone with it. Obviously people have lessons for a reason, but does this lead to less variety in music? Jakesbass - Is there such thing as a sh*t artist? Does being a musician make you able to judge who is a good and who is a "sh*t musician"? How do you judge whether a musician is good or not? It's all subjective isn't it? If i can put it this way - I've recently started playing the drums in a band. I have always listened to drum beats since being a kid, and i've always had them in my head. When I first had a go on a drum kit, I couldn't play what I wanted to, and it really frustrated me. My right hand wouldn't detach from the movement of my right foot! So, I went home and worked on getting my limbs going independantly, just by tapping my fingers and feet etc. That was when I was 15, and since then I've played the drums on about 10 occasions, for about 30 max. Now i'm 23, i've started seriously drumming in a band, and it's really easy. I know what beats I want to play, and I can play them. I have trouble with my stamina, but that's a physical thing. I know that i'm holding my sticks like an idiot, and that I have poor technique in the eyes of most conventional drummers (because i've been told, and seen my video compared to pros) but I don't care, because I get the job done, and i'm constantly improving. I can go and practice the drums for hours on end now, "improvising" i.e. playing whatever comes into my head, and when something's too fast, or when my legs are tired, I know that's an area for improvement and I can work on it. Should I be getting lessons, or reading Drummer Magazine (or whatever) or looking at techniques online etc etc? I feel that there's more chance of me having a unique style of drumming if I steer clear of all of these conventions. Is this stupid?

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155987' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:12 PM']then you wouldn't be breaking boundaries IMO you would in a musical sense be breaking wind IMO[/quote] Heh, well it depends what your initial motivations are. If you've been listening to similar music all your life, and then you pick up a bass and decide to never play anything like that, and to just play what you like the sound of, you could accidentally break the boundaries as seen by others. You might accidentally stumble accross jazz, or blues, or any other genre that has been done before. It would be very unlikely for your playing to sound conventional to other bassists though.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155981' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:04 PM']you need to know what the boundaries are before you have a chance of breaking them[/quote] That's not true! It's just you wouldn't know that you've broken them.

[quote name='bassbloke' post='155974' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:58 PM']It's one thing to contradict yourself across multiple posts in a thread, but to contradict yourself twice in the same thread just shows that, as with previous threads, you have nothing particularly constructive to contribute and are just being contrary for the sake of it.[/quote] Sorry, where have I contradicted myself? I assume you have a different opinion of what "technically very good" means. To me it means someone who can play lots of notes in very quick succession using a variety of techniques. I can't play very fast at all, I'm quite sloppy in that I hit muted strings all the time (but I like that), I don't know how to play any scales or modes, I wouldn't know what you meant if you said "ok, now key change to F#", i'd have to watch the guitarist etc etc.

[quote name='mcgraham' post='155966' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:49 PM']I am running out of words to convey my exasperation. I am not angry at you bud, really I'm not, and I apologise if I come across that way. I'm just really struggling to understand how you can make a stand on this. Mark[/quote] You don't come across as angry! I'm not "making a stand on this" just discussing it. Hundreds of years of developement in music education have created the conventions we see in music today. While knowing the conventions inside out does not neccessarily restrict you to them, it may make you on average more conventional than a musician who is not aware of these conventions. I would like to be unconventional in my playing, so I try to ignore everything I know and just listen to what sounds i'm making/make the sounds I hear in my head. This seems to have at least a shred of logic to it?

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155953' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:29 PM']It's not what [i]I[/i] said, it's what [i]you[/i] said. It's not what [i]I[/i] think it's what you [i]said[/i] I think. and since you don't reside in my concious I don't really think you're in a position to posit my thoughts even, if you think thats what I meant. Those are the things I feel its pointless to try and address, and its tiring and impossible not to sound pompous when being required to examine the conduct within a conversation.[/quote] When I said "You have pointed out that you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing." I didn't mean to state it as fact, it should have been "You have pointed out that when you have learned a lot of theory, you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, wouldn't this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing?" Sorry I was misunderstood. You did say that I "missed the point there" and "again, I feel you've missed my point", which I why I said "I have no idea what points I have missed and i'm very interested!". I did actually have guitar lessons for 8 years and learned a lot of theory through that, and subsequently forgot it all. I still know where to put my fingers if I play a bum note and need to act fast, and I know where to put my fingers to play whatever comes into my head. I assume this is a minor manifestation of the kind of "learn it then forget it all" attitude Bilbo was talking about. What interests me is whether the actual theory, i.e. all of the special words and phrases, all of the different scales and keys etc etc, need actually be learned in order to get to this standard. Several people have said that it makes the learning process quicker, but i'm not so sure.

[quote name='Paul_C' post='155923' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:40 PM']You might be developing a knowledge that's comparable, but what you're essentially doing is creating your own music theory, which you internalise such that you can access it without concious effort. So you're arriving at the same point but with a set of skills which are harder to share than if you'd learned the established way of describing things. Just because you know that a particular set of notes works with a particular chord doesn't mean you can't experiment with playing other notes, but you are more aware of where you can jump to next if it sounds startlingly bad [/quote] Yeh, I kind of just came to the same conclusion. A bit of a pointless argument then really! Sorry about that.

I'm not saying that learning theory is pointless at all. There are enough people here arguing how good it is to convince me of it's merits. The kind of learning method i'm talking about will not leave you aimlessly noodling and pretty much hoping to stumble accross anything. Sitting down and playing by ear over and over again will also develop a knowledge of the instrument comparable to that achievable using music theory.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155860' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:25 AM']I think when you reach the point in a conversation where you have to explain what you [i]haven't said[/i] due to the assertions of the other participant it gets a little tiring so I'm going to stop there. I have enjoyed it though. Thanks[/quote] I think that's a bit lame. I have no idea what points I have missed and i'm very interested! It's all to do with different ways of educating the brain, and how this "knowledge" (collection of habits?) manifests it's self in a musician's playing. I disagree with this: "uneducated musician is inevitable limted by his own internal constraints" (Bilbo) Everyone is limited by their own internal constraints. It's not a proven fact that it would take longer to become as good a musician without education than with is it? It's entirely possible for someone's entire musical education to have come from listening to popular music, and for this person to be the best pop bassist/guitarist/whatever there is. I honestly believe you could say the same about jazz. The hardest part of this is judging what "technical brilliance" "style" "originality" etc etc actually are. We all have our own perceptions of what makes a better bass player. Also Bilbo - What is the distinction between nuno's improvised guitar playing and "improvised music"? I assume you're saying that a couple of solos memorised so that you can move the shapes about on the neck isn't exactly improvising. I would totally agree with that and have already stated how my guitarist tends to use nuno's shapes with annoying regularity. It doesn't sound like improvisation if you're constantly doing the same thing - obviously.

Ok - If learning theory is all about internalising knowledge to the effect that you can play without thinking surely this can be attainable without actually learning the theory in the first place. If theory teaches you where the right notes are, but you can hear where the right notes are anyway, couldn't you just use your ears to accomplish the same thing that theory teaches?