Basic Understanding Necessary?

[stingrayPete1977]

I have kept out of this thread but the more I read the more of my money will be heading for Doddys pocket

[SteveK]

On the evidence of this thread, it seems to me that the message is getting through.
We don't have the "I don't do theory...I'm a feel player" and "Jaco Miller doesn't know any theory and he sells by the gazillions" type posts, as I seem to remember from older threads on the subject.

Personally, I would advise that theory is a bad idea and should be avoided at all costs...

... last thing we old pros want is for some young(er) rapscallion to start getting all the gigs.

[mrtcat]

I don't have a major problem with people who don't know basic theory as long as they make an effort to get up to speed and don't start slowing everything down. I have played with some guys who knew no theory at all but could really hold their own and when a problem arose they took it upon themselves to learn a bit of basic stuff. I've also played with people who refuse to learn anything and that never cuts it long term.

I personally think everyone needs some basics under their belt but beyond that it depends on what you want to achieve. I know enough to allow me to communicate and vary stuff. Players like doddy probably have forgotten more than I'll ever know but they are pro muso's and their livelihood depends on it. I'd be sacked before the end of the first song if I tried to cut it in their capacity but I play an O'Neils gig several times a month and earn good pocket money with my limited theory knowledge.

[icastle]

[quote name='SteveK' post='1148857' date='Mar 3 2011, 08:27 PM']Personally, I would advise that theory is a bad idea and should be avoided at all costs...

... last thing we old pros want is for some young(er) rapscallion to start getting all the gigs. [/quote]

+1

Yep.
No need to know any theory at all, totally unnecessary and a waste of time...



[size=1](pssst... do you think they bought it Steve? )[/size]

Edited March 3, 2011 by icastle

[Bloc Riff Nut]

I'm having to learn the terminology all over again - I moved to Holland.
They call C# Sies, and Bb Bes. It does me head in!
The verse is the Couplet and the chorus is... ha ha,I can't remember. OOPs

[Mlucas]

[quote name='Bloc Riff Nut' post='1148876' date='Mar 3 2011, 09:36 PM']I'm having to learn the terminology all over again - I moved to Holland.
They call C# Sies, and Bb Bes. It does me head in!
The verse is the Couplet and the chorus is... ha ha,I can't remember. OOPs[/quote]

It's bad enough learning it all the first time, letalone in another language!

[Ancient Mariner]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1148674' date='Mar 3 2011, 05:55 PM']A learned player won't think "I'd love to substitute a flattened 5th there" either,they still know how the note will sound.Just because
you know about theory doesn't mean that you stop listening and rely purely on knowledge,however that knowledge is always there
in the background,subconciously. The big difference is that the pure ear player may hit the flat 5 and realise that it sounds horrible,
whereas the schooled player will already know that it's a bad choice.[/quote]

TBH this is as arrogant as the claim having no theory is essential to creativity. A good player with or without theory will avoid the note that sounds bad because they know it will sound bad. The player with theory will be able to give a detailed explanation for why it sounds bad, whereas the ear player will just say they avoided it because it would sound bad. As someone pointed out here, theory players don't usually spend all their time calculating what notes may and may not be played over a progression - they know because they've learned how music works at an unconscious level, just like the ear player.

[stingrayPete1977]

We have been here before though AM, your talking about someone who knows theory but doesn't know they do where Doddy is referring to someone who doesn't and plays by ear only once the bum note has rung out. Playing by ear is great and the better you are at it the quicker you move off the bum note but if you knew it was in minor from the off you wouldn't even need the duff grace note to semi tone in the first place. Ear players is such a loose term and we all know what some people are saying about the good ones, I have been in bands with a few that can play guitar better than I ever will and lots of others at jam nights where often the guitar is out of tune before we start then they play so far off the Mark everyone else is looking at each other as if to say f*** me can't he hear it?!

Edited March 3, 2011 by stingrayPete1977

[Doddy]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1149024' date='Mar 3 2011, 10:46 PM']TBH this is as arrogant as the claim having no theory is essential to creativity. A good player with or without theory will avoid the note that sounds bad because they know it will sound bad. The player with theory will be able to give a detailed explanation for why it sounds bad, whereas the ear player will just say they avoided it because it would sound bad. As someone pointed out here, theory players don't usually spend all their time calculating what notes may and may not be played over a progression - they know because they've learned how music works at an unconscious level, just like the ear player.[/quote]

It was Me and Bilbo that made the comments about it being unconscious.

What I said wasn't arrogant at all. If you have an understanding of what you are doing you are more likely to eliminate
the pure trial and error than a player that doesn't. If you are asked to play over,say,a G7 chord,a player who knows
a bit about theory will be able to play it straight off,whereas a player who doesn't is likely to hit a duff note or
two because they don't know what notes work.
Like I said before,having good ears is vital,but there are a lot of situations where having good ears alone just won't cut it.
That's not being arrogant-it's being honest.

[dmccombe7]

Not sure how much of this thread I agree with. We seem to cover same ground. Don't think we will ever settle this debate and can only hope that some people will expand their horizon and look at other avenues / ways to improve on what they already know.

I started bass many yrs ago and studied the theory for a couple of yrs to get a basic understanding of how music works.
For a period of circa 20-25 yrs my main use of theory was to know that when the guitarist or keys played a specific chord I more or less knew what notes I could play to accompany that chord. It kinda came naturally.
Over the years I've combined that with listening and trial and error. Whatever helps me learn a particular bass line.

Didn't use sight reading or theory within the band setting although I have always found that writing down the basic theory (basically scribbling notes on a blank sheet of paper) helped when trying to learn and remember a bass line.

I have in the past few yrs gone back to learning chord sequences and although not a professional musician by any means I am enjoying the learning experience and it has opened my eyes to new styles, techniques and possibilities.

Theory probably isn't for everyone but can be used to your advantage.
There's no harm in using whatever tools are available whether that be theory, listening or instruction.

Cheers
Dave

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1149115' date='Mar 4 2011, 12:22 AM']It was Me and Bilbo that made the comments about it being unconscious.

What I said wasn't arrogant at all. If you have an understanding of what you are doing you are more likely to eliminate
the pure trial and error than a player that doesn't.[/quote]

It's extremely disingenuous to suggest that a player who doesn't have formal theoretical training lacks understanding of what they're doing.
I don't think anyone's denying that musical theory can be and often is very useful but you do have to remember not everyone learns the same way. For some people forcing them to translate between the music they hear and the spoken word is just off-putting and unnatural.
From a selfish point of view I'd love it if formal academic faculty equated to talent in all spheres, but like it or not, it doesn't. Think about sports with a tactical element. Plenty of players with great tactical acumen and 'vision' sound frankly less than smart when you hear them speak about their sport. Likewise I don't need training in calculus to cross a busy road or intercept a moving ball, despite the fact my brain is dealing with complex rates of change calculations. It sounds silly but the point I'm trying to make is that understanding is one thing, but articulating it requires a separate skill set based around linguistic or mathematical ability to analogise.
The idea that 'those who can, do and those who can't, teach' is very trite and unfair and music is a subject where teaching is far more integrated than most - but I think it's fair to say teachnig (ie analysis and re-articulation) is a very different skill to doing. A decent 'natural' (ie non-thoery) musician is absolutely fine at analysis but just doesn't bother with the re-articulation. These people are rare but by the same token it's rare to find the absolute best theorists among the top rank of performers.

[Doddy]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1149668' date='Mar 4 2011, 05:03 PM']It's extremely disingenuous to suggest that a player who doesn't have formal theoretical training lacks understanding of what they're doing.[/quote]

I never said suggested that if you haven't had formal training that you lack understanding.
What I said was that if you have an understanding you are more likely to eliminate the trial and error than a player
who doesn't. If you are required to play a C minor and you don't know what notes are involved,you will struggle to play
it correctly,and are more likely to make a mistake that someone who does know. That's the way it is with most things.
No one is suggesting that you should know everything about theory,but this thread is about having a basic understanding.
You may not need to use it with your band,as it may be a case of listen and copy. But,if you ever want to move away from
this situation you will need a basic understanding of theory. 'Natural' talent is all well and good,but it doesn't help if you can't
decipher a basic chord chart.
The thing with guitar and bass,is that because you can play patterns on the fingerboard,it is easy to think of a scale of chord
as a fingering rather than a series of notes. You may be able to get away with this for a while,but in the long run,it can lead to
problems.

For those of you that care,everything I know was learned by either doing it on a gig or by sucking on a gig and realising that
I need to learn more if I want to get rehired.

[JTUK]

Its all relative.
Generally I support the more educated argument just to cover more basses than not...no pun. but there must be many a
'clueless' player who can blow away his 'educated' sidemen in some contexts'
Some talent is purely freakishly natural
The thing is to have as many tricks and tools as you can muster and it is down to the individual to try and develop what he needs to do what he wants.

If it is his gig and he is paying the big bucks..who is arguing.
If he needs to sit in on another gig...his natural talents will likely need to be very acute

To take the sport/football analogy... some people like Gazza cannot string two sentences together very well, but he was light years ahead of his teammates and no tactics, team talks or coaching could teach that.

I thought he was a footballing genius

Other than that..we don't need the bun fight do we..??

Edited March 4, 2011 by JTUK

[stingrayPete1977]

There's only one way to find out......

[SteveK]

Doddy is mostly correct in what he is saying. However, I think he is in danger of overstating the case and in his enthusiasm making one or two rash statements.

As I've said before in previous threads on the same subject, we have all heard of the great non-trained, non-theory musicians. In fact one of my closest friends, who will be known to some BCers, hasn't the faintest idea about scales and modes, and basic theory, BUT, he is probably the most phenomenal guitarist/musician I know. These people are very few and far between.

It's dangerous to think that maybe you will be one of these great, untrained musicians... it's a fairly safe bet that you won't.

[lojo]

I'm sure this debate has come up before


To sum up lets agree ....

Ideally everyone would have a in depth knowledge of theory, no matter how much natural talent exists, but that will never be, unless all our schools teach it as well as the written word, and alot of schools are still failing at that

It is possible to enjoy and entertain and be in a good band with very little theory, but very difficult with none whatsoever

It is possible to have a high level of theory and not be able to do anything apart from play from sheets

It is possible to have no theory and not therefore not understand how much knowing theory could help, and therefore dismiss it

It is possible to know theory and look down on those that don't

It is possible to not know theory and think those that do are elite asses, even though they may be nice chaps who studied hard to know theory

It is possible to know theory, be naturally good and be a top musician

It is possible to have no theory, but have a good ear and do well at trail and error, even within complex arrangements

It is possible to have no theory, bad timing and no ear

It is possible to have theory, bad timing and no ear

Have I missed any ?

Edited March 4, 2011 by lojo

[icastle]

[quote name='lojo' post='1149760' date='Mar 4 2011, 06:33 PM']Have I missed any ?[/quote]

Theoretically, no...

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1149724' date='Mar 4 2011, 05:58 PM']For those of you that care,everything I know was learned by either doing it on a gig or by sucking on a gig and realising that
I need to learn more if I want to get rehired.[/quote]

That's exactly it though - you learn with your ears, and that's what tells you you suck! Theory involving notation and chord/key names is a great shortcut to helping make sense of what you're hearing, narrowing down the options. I just think that for some people that kind of academic approach becomes a real barrier to participation in something where they could actually engage with it on terms that don't require that degree of abstraction.

I think my perspective is informed by my wife's experience as an anthropologist dealing with very different cultures to ours. My 'proper' job is as a research scientist and so I'm very used to the type of logical abstraction involved in academia and general theory. But we forget that this is a particular, culturally-informed system and there are alternatives which are effective although they articulate the issues very differently at first glance.

Perfect pitch is an interesting extreme example of where the brain itself approaches a problem in a completely different way (why don't we all have this ability? Probably because it confers serious disadvantages compared to one prioritising relative pattern spotting). Neurologically speaking if you actually analyse the process of learning itself it's clear that different approaches to what is ostensibly the same complex problem require different mental strengths. It makes sense for an individual to play to theirs, and also that some people's approaches will appear completely incomprehensible to certain others.

As a final point you do seem to place a lot of importance on reading chord charts. Obviously, that's crucial for what you do and is fair enough, but would be of little use if those around you are employing a different system, which is fairly common when talking globally. You talk about thinking in shapes rather than notes, whereas as an analytical system I'd say it can be entirely equivalent knowing the sound of a note as a position in a shape or as a name within a scale. The difference in the two systems is that one involves a visual and the other a linguistic semiosis, the only important things are whether you have a firm grasp of the link between sound and its representation in whatever system is being employed, and to a lesser extent which system those around you are employing. For instance, I have to rely entirely on my ear or visual cues whenever I play with anyone who uses tab!

[Blademan_98]

[quote]It is possible to have no theory, bad timing and no ear[/quote]

lol, you managed to sum me up superbly

Well done that chap

[stingrayPete1977]

I'm just looking at my "music reading for bass" book from MI and the last sentence by Wendi Hrehovcsik seams to sum this up for me.

"I sincerely hope the tools presented in this book provide you with the keys to unlocking your potential and lead you to many exciting musical encounters, both on the written page and off."

Sounds good to me?

[Ancient Mariner]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1150102' date='Mar 4 2011, 11:12 PM']I'm just looking at my "music reading for bass" book from MI and the last sentence by Wendi Hrehovcsik seams to sum this up for me.

"I sincerely hope the tools presented in this book provide you with the keys to unlocking your potential and lead you to many exciting musical encounters, both on the written page and off."

Sounds good to me?[/quote]

And that's a big part of the point. For some, learning music theory in the classical sense presents them with a great set of tools. For others the classical approach to theory makes no or little sense at all, and if they're to actually play an instrument then they need to find other ways of doing it and also how they can work with other musicians.

The original point about a basic understanding has become a little obscured in all this. The thing is, our ideas of what constitutes a basic understanding varies considerably, and the minimum necessary level of understanding required will depend almost entirely on who you have to play with and the musical style you are familiar with. It will also be affected by our musical preferences and our innate musicality.

At risk of things getting personal and going off on unhelpful analysis, I find I can hear certain kinds of chords very clearly while others (primarily those I don't like - yes, there are chords that are wrong in my ears) I can't readily distinguish. This makes it amusing because in one band I was accused of being too technical, while in other circumstances I can't always hear where the music is going because of the kinds of chords used. I'd suggest that the minimum 'basic understanding' necessary is one that will let you work without excessive trouble with the musicians you're playing with.

[stingrayPete1977]

I would say it's a fairly basic book with basic knowledge, I just wish I knew more of it!

I used to be in the theory cramps and guides a players style camp but like many other contradictions I have confessed too (5 strings being a waste of time was another recent one where I have changed camp) the more I learn the more I get it, As soon as I'm jamming I still use ears first but now I can look at a bass line and think oh that's in D minor which means I can pop a cheeky one of these in here without the fear of a clanger! Sure I still feck it up here and there and get mixed up but I have only just put one foot on the ladder and AFAIK no one has seen the top rung of the ladder yet? Not even flea or Mark king

[lowdown]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1150188' date='Mar 5 2011, 01:07 AM']the more I learn the more I get it,[/quote]

I have just read four pages on all this - some eloquently put together.
But none hit the point like that.




Garry

Edited March 5, 2011 by lowdown

[Bilbo]

For me, this debate is not about what is or is not possible but about what is or is nnot advisable. For anyone who has recently started the bass, I would argue that the theory/reading route to be the one that wastes less time in the long run. Everyone who comes to realise this always says the same thhing: 'I wish I had done this earlier'. It is not an instead of playing the tunes you like, it is as well as. If you learn a tune based aroudna dorianm minor and know that is what it is, every other tune that is based on that scale is an open book.

I also hold the view that, if you can't articulate what you know, you probably don't know it as well as you think. This is not about whether it is possible to learn without theory. Of course it is. The issue is, is it the best way. I think it isn't and my experience and connections with both theorists and the rest bears this out. Remember, groove playing, rhythm and feel are all part of the theory too and not set apart from it.

[Doddy]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1149998' date='Mar 4 2011, 09:51 PM']That's exactly it though - you learn with your ears, and that's what tells you you suck! Theory involving notation and chord/key names is a great shortcut to helping make sense of what you're hearing, narrowing down the options. I just think that for some people that kind of academic approach becomes a real barrier to participation in something where they could actually engage with it on terms that don't require that degree of abstraction.[/quote]
Yes,it was initially learned with the ears,but not wanting to make those mistakes again,you go away and study-at least I do.
Learning things theoretically isn't a shortcut at all,because it takes time to learn-a bigger shortcut is to just learn a fingering pattern.
The only time that learning this stuff becomes a barrier is when the player doesn't know how to apply it to music. If you do know how to apply it,it actually removes barriers and gives you greater options.

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1149998' date='Mar 4 2011, 09:51 PM']As a final point you do seem to place a lot of importance on reading chord charts. Obviously, that's crucial for what you do and is fair enough, but would be of little use if those around you are employing a different system, which is fairly common when talking globally. You talk about thinking in shapes rather than notes, whereas as an analytical system I'd say it can be entirely equivalent knowing the sound of a note as a position in a shape or as a name within a scale. The difference in the two systems is that one involves a visual and the other a linguistic semiosis, the only important things are whether you have a firm grasp of the link between sound and its representation in whatever system is being employed, and to a lesser extent which system those around you are employing. For instance, I have to rely entirely on my ear or visual cues whenever I play with anyone who uses tab![/quote]

The reason I use chord charts as an example is because it is common way of passing information,although it could just as easily be a keyboard player dictating the chords beforehand.
The problem with learning just a series of patterns,is it becomes easy to get stuck in that pattern. If,for example,you learn a major scale in it's most common fingering,you can reference the notes within it based on that pattern. But,if you know what notes it contains,you can reference it over the whole fingerboard.
Like I've already said,you don't stop using your ears when you study-you use them both in conjunction with each other.They both help each other.
There are a lot of gigs out there where you don't have the luxury of being given the music to listen to ahead of time,and it's for situations like that where knowing all this information becomes vital.