Theory versus Groove

[Pete Academy]

I don't really understand the mud-slinging responses on this thread, especially by using the term VERSUS.

I was simply stating a fact that I believe in - and that is that playing with good groove and time is more important than knowing theory in a basic band situation. And I'd still maintain that belief even if I understood theory, which I admit I don't.

King Kong versus Godzilla...that was a good one.

[JTUK]

Not sure Fagen is that much the stickler with SD being readers only gig. I think the way they put togther recording bands was legendary and they picked from the same session scene tree, so most probably were, but touring and the early days, not so much, I'd guess.
The best solution would be the one that worked and they rotated bands in the studio to that end often cutting the same track with a different section.. and by the way some tracks came together would have been the result of a studio jam..
thinking about the drum track solo part in Aja here, for example..

They are very clever guys, but even Becker said he was seriously outclassed when playing up against the calibre of players they had to call on.. but hey, it was their band and they paid the wages, so certain rules might not apply to them anyway.

Who wrote most of the early chord charts..?? not Becker or Fagen..but Carlton, and the reason they used him was as a sort of conduit MD in the studio..to progress the song in musical terms. Great player as well, of course.

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='JTUK' post='1016165' date='Nov 8 2010, 11:14 AM']Not sure Fagen is that much the stickler with SD being readers only gig. I think the way they put togther recording bands was legendary and they picked from the same session scene tree, so most probably were, but touring and the early days, not so much, I'd guess.
The best solution would be the one that worked and they rotated bands in the studio to that end often cutting the same track with a different section.. and by the way some tracks came together would have been the result of a studio jam..
thinking about the drum track solo part in Aja here, for example..

They are very clever guys, but even Becker said he was seriously outclassed when playing up against the calibre of players they had to call on.. but hey, it was their band and they paid the wages, so certain rules might not apply to them anyway.

Who wrote most of the early chord charts..?? not Becker or Fagen..but Carlton, and the reason they used him was as a sort of conduit MD in the studio..to progress the song in musical terms. Great player as well, of course.[/quote]

If you read Chuck Rainey interviews, he often vents his frustration at Fagen taking credit for his bass parts.

[JTUK]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016173' date='Nov 8 2010, 11:19 AM']If you read Chuck Rainey interviews, he often vents his frustration at Fagen taking credit for his bass parts.[/quote]


ha ha ..should have been on triple triple scale....

But to be fair to SD..they upped a LOT of players profiles as well...in the public domain, anyway.

[Earbrass]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1015810' date='Nov 7 2010, 10:11 PM']I think the OP needs to think about what they are actually seeking in the answer to this question. I guess its some form of affirmation that you can be a good player by relying on one's ability to groove without having to do the hard bit (the theory). The good news is of course you can. So now you can go and play Call of Duty for five hours with a clear conscience and leave us nerds to the analytical world of grooveless mathematics......

Enjoy [/quote]

Nail >> Head.

[Doddy]

[quote name='JTUK' post='1016165' date='Nov 8 2010, 11:14 AM']The best solution would be the one that worked and they rotated bands in the studio to that end often cutting the same track with a different section.. and by the way some tracks came together would have been the result of a studio jam..
thinking about the drum track solo part in Aja here, for example..[/quote]

Although,Steve Gadd actually played 'Aja' whilst reading a piano part and only did two takes-and I think it was the first one that was used.

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1015810' date='Nov 7 2010, 10:11 PM']I think the OP needs to think about what they are actually seeking in the answer to this question. I guess its some form of affirmation that you can be a good player by relying on the ones ability to groove without having to do the hard bit (the theory). The good news is of course you can. So now you can go and play Call of Duty for five hours with a clear conscience and leave us nerds to the analytical world of grooveless mathematics......

Enjoy [/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you're insinuating that I feel guilty about not understanding theory, and so need reassurance that it's OK. I can assure you I don't need that. I said in a previous thread that I'd missed out on gigs and work through not being able to read, but I'm happy enough with the gigs I have done for the last 35 years.

I know of good readers that fail in the groove department, and this goes for any instrument.

[Earbrass]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016206' date='Nov 8 2010, 11:54 AM']Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you're insinuating that I feel guilty about not understanding theory, and so need reassurance that it's OK. I can assure you I don't need that. I said in a previous thread that I'd missed out on gigs and work through not being able to read, but I'm happy enough with the gigs I have done for the last 35 years.

I know of good readers that fail in the groove department, and this goes for any instrument.[/quote]

If you didn't have a teeny-weeny chip on the shoulder about it, you wouldn't need to keep banging on about how much it doesn't matter, would you?

[jakenewmanbass]

Ok Pete some questions for you.
Why does one have to be better? What does it prove? What does it establish? What point is there to deciding that, without fail, one is better than the other?

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1016232' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:16 PM']Ok Pete some questions for you.
Why does one have to be better? What does it prove? What does it establish? What point is there to deciding that, without fail, one is better than the other?[/quote]

OK Jake, I admit my OP was open to ridicule, especially with the 'versus/for and against/which one is better' tone. I just think that being able to play in time and groove is fundamentally more important. I'm sure as a 'complete' player (and I don't mean this facetiously), you can play me under the table.

I simply prefer to hear playing 'from the heart', so to speak.

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='1016229' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:14 PM']If you didn't have a teeny-weeny chip on the shoulder about it, you wouldn't need to keep banging on about how much it doesn't matter, would you? [/quote]

Nope, not even a micro-chip. The tone of your response was totally unnecessary.

[JTUK]

Maybe we should take a step back..nothing to be gained if the thread derails into two camps.

FWIW..I am sure we all know a few people who have a great reputation but it doesn't work in another context.
I have certainly had players on gigs whose playing you don't get... and I am sure I have been on ones where they have been glad to see the back of me..!! and some of these would have had stellar CV's.. but I'd argue that some of these guys have been pretty awful considering the company they have kept.. thinking about a couple in particular..and I have done more than a few gigs with them, so not a bad night or one-off..IMO.

Anyway..what works, works. Be thankful and hopeful we can tell the difference..

[xilddx]

I think, Pete, that maybe people like me and you, who have a good few years playing in various situations under our belts, who don't really know much theory and have very poor reading skills - take our aural and technical skills for granted. A lot of people don't have those natural abilities and may need to learn more formally.

My first music lesson as a teenager were all about learning theory and reading. But it wasn't really explained to me in a way I understood, and it really put me off, for a very long time. My heroes were people with great ears and some formal training though, Randy Rhoads, Michael Schenker, Edward Van Halen, Steve Hillage.

Having, or developing, a great ear so you can recognise intervallic and rhythmic relationships is vital if your are to express yourself, as only then can you hear the music a split second before you play it. Whether you can put a name to them is a different matter and depends on what you want to achieve.

The real question is probably MUSIC - LOVE versus MONEY? Or BOTH?

Edited November 8, 2010 by silddx

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='silddx' post='1016271' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:47 PM']I think, Pete, that maybe people like me and you, who have a good few years playing in various situations under our belts, who don't really know much theory and have very poor reading skills - take our aural and technical skills for granted. A lot of people don't have those natural abilities and may need to learn more formally.

My first music lesson as a teenager were all about learning theory and reading. But it wasn't really explained to me in a way I understood, and it really put me off, for a very long time. My heroes were people with great ears and some formal training though, Randy Rhoads, Michael Schenker, Edward Van Halen, Steve Hillage.

Having, or developing, a great ear so you can recognise intervallic and rhythmic relationships is vital if your are to express yourself, as only then can you hear the music a split second before you play it. Whether you can put a name to them is a different matter and depends on what you want to achieve.

The real question is probably MUSIC - LOVE versus MONEY? Or BOTH?[/quote]

I would agree, but many won't.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016256' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:37 PM']OK Jake, I admit my OP was open to ridicule, especially with the 'versus/for and against/which one is better' tone. I just think that being able to play in time and groove is fundamentally more important.[/quote]
I'm not ridiculing your question mate, I'm trying to undermine it's validity, because I really do regard it as invalid. There is no 'best' because there are great musicians of all sorts who have a variety of skills. including reading and a knowledge of theory and great ears and scarily there are guys who have it all in spades.
One observation I will make is that not being a reader you will not have come across as many good readers as reading bass players will have, so your pool to draw from as example is limited.

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016256' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:37 PM']I'm sure as a 'complete' player (and I don't mean this facetiously), you can play me under the table.[/quote]
It's irrelevant, I trade on feel Pete, I'm not known as a good reader I just do it because there is work in it. When I played with H gang I learned the entire set, not one chart.
Most of my working week does not require heavy reading skills but I think it's critical to have them to a greater or lesser degree.

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016256' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:37 PM']I simply prefer to hear playing 'from the heart', so to speak.[/quote]

That implies that a reader would not be playing from the heart... this is also not demonstrable to any meaningful degree. Remember that all reading is about a quick way to absorb the music and not have to store tons of it in your head, once the first few rehearsals are over it is simply an aide memoir for real players to do what they do best, make great music.

Of course you have come across readers with a poor feel... the opposite is also true in many, many cases.

There is no 'best way' only good music... how it's arrived at is irrelevant.

[AndyTravis]

After 13/14 years of playing, i'd like to think i've got feel, groove, good ear sorted - most techniques seem to be no problem etc.

But i'm having my first theory lesson tonight.

I think i'm realising a bit of theory wouldn't go amiss - and I need a challenge; I want to be a better musician than I am, and i've plateaued.

It also helps that it's a mate who's a guitar tutor and has been landed with 5 bass students from next month and in his own words 'Plays bass like a guitarist' so we're sharing each others knowledge. And is costing me nowt.

As for what's 'better' - I know a lot of guys armed to the teeth with strong reading and sound theory who can ruin a gig through playing with zero 'feel' and I know amazing technician guys who haven't a clue on theory and can ruin a gig through playing with zero feel.

I think it's a question of poor musucianship vs good musicianship.

I get your point though.

Edited November 8, 2010 by AndyTravis

[phil.i.stein]

let's put this in non-musical terms.

Q. do you need to be able to read to communicate with other people ?

A. ..no

[urb]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1016296' date='Nov 8 2010, 01:11 PM']There is no 'best way' only good music... how it's arrived at is irrelevant.[/quote]

+1

is all I'm going to add to this

M

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1016296' date='Nov 8 2010, 01:11 PM']I'm not ridiculing your question mate, I'm trying to undermine it's validity, because I really do regard it as invalid. There is no 'best' because there are great musicians of all sorts who have a variety of skills. including reading and a knowledge of theory and great ears and scarily there are guys who have it all in spades.
One observation I will make is that not being a reader you will not have come across as many good readers as reading bass players will have, so your pool to draw from as example is limited.


It's irrelevant, I trade on feel Pete, I'm not known as a good reader I just do it because there is work in it. When I played with H gang I learned the entire set, not one chart.
Most of my working week does not require heavy reading skills but I think it's critical to have them to a greater or lesser degree.



That implies that a reader would not be playing from the heart... this is also not demonstrable to any meaningful degree. Remember that all reading is about a quick way to absorb the music and not have to store tons of it in your head, once the first few rehearsals are over it is simply an aide memoir for real players to do what they do best, make great music.

Of course you have come across readers with a poor feel... the opposite is also true in many, many cases.

There is no 'best way' only good music... how it's arrived at is irrelevant.[/quote]

That's a good reply, Jake. Fair points...and duly taken.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016281' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:58 PM']I would agree, but many won't.[/quote]
That's as may be. Another element is that we probably don't value our abilities enough, given from what I know of your personality. We both likely believe we are pretty ordniary and that most people have our aural skills, but I think we may be a lot better than we think we are. I'm starting to wonder about this a bit more because I base a lot of my thinking about music upon my own experiences and abilities.

I lived with a sitarist for a good number of years. She is still the best musician I know. She studied with possibly the best musician on the planet, Ali Akbar Khan, and her uncle was a very well known sitarist. Indian ragas are are melody only, over a drone, but the complexity of rhythms is much more advanced than western music usually is, so is African drum music. Rhythms within rhythms.

So, there is so much more to music than just theory, notation, learn it or don't learn it type questions. The real questions are to know yourself, and do what is appropriate to further your vision or desires. We don't teach philosophy in schools here (beyond the basic religious texts), maybe that is what we should all learn earlier on in life, to know oneself. After all, I have met so many musicians who don't think about such things, and maybe that is hindering their ability to make music too.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016317' date='Nov 8 2010, 01:25 PM']That's a good reply, Jake. Fair points...and duly taken. [/quote]
Appreciated Pete, I'm not about proving people wrong or making others think my way, I simply like to present evidence that is as I see it... which is hopefully compelling.

[Earbrass]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1016260' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:40 PM']Nope, not even a micro-chip. The tone of your response was totally unnecessary. [/quote]

Well, sorry if I was unnecessarily confrontational, but these "theory/readying isn't that important"-type threads pop up fairly regularly here, whereas I've yet to see anyone start a "reading ability - so much more important than feel" thread, or arguing that anyone who can't read music/knows no theory must therefore be a rubbish musician, so I do wonder just what threads like yours are supposed to prove, and to whom.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='phil.i.stein' post='1016307' date='Nov 8 2010, 01:17 PM']let's put this in non-musical terms.

Q. do you need to be able to read to communicate with other people ?

A. ..no[/quote]

What did he say? I can't read.....

Can you imagine how limited the internet would be for you if you didn't read? Now transfer that to music

[chris_b]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1016469' date='Nov 8 2010, 03:36 PM']....Can you imagine how limited the internet would be for you if you didn't read? Now transfer that to music....[/quote]
Reading has been a pretty irrelevant skill for most people for most of human history. Western musical theory has been irrelevant to most people for most of human history, and still is to a large part of the world!

So where are you going with this?

[phil.i.stein]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1016469' date='Nov 8 2010, 03:36 PM']What did he say? I can't read.....

Can you imagine how limited the internet would be for you if you didn't read? Now transfer that to music [/quote]
yes i did think about that whilst i was posting, but i then thought about the fact that tech allows blind people to get involved.

i do agree that learning to read and write does expand your possibilities. i'm just saying that it's not essential, and can also be limiting, if the pursuit of vocabulary for itself exceeds the passion for expression.