Basic Understanding Necessary?

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='icastle' post='1147794' date='Mar 2 2011, 10:30 PM']As musicians we communicate through music.

Someone who cannot grasp the what the name of the chord they are playing is called is destined to be a solo artist.[/quote]

The language of music is the music though, not the names we ascribe to aspects of it. I find music theory really interesting but someone can be such a complete ear player that while they're fluent in the language of music, they're unable to speak in English/(Italian) about what they're doing. That's only a problem when the direct communication through the music fails.

It's interesting to remember that most of the rules which define something like formal harmony or, say, sonata form (or bebop for that matter) were defined after lots of the music that exemplifies it was written/recorded. I don't like it when people are anti-theory but at the same time I do respect people who obviously have an aural understanding of what they're doing even if they can't put it into words. Just a bit annoying when my ears can't keep up with them or if I think their ears are letting them down and there's no handy way of explaining it to them!

[Blademan_98]

I think that you can strum a few chords / play a few notes and have a great time on guitar / bass.

If you want to play with others (jam nights or in a band) it's best to know a bit of theory.

I used to think that if I new the chord shapes and I can read A-G then I would be fine.

It didn't take long to realise that you do need a grasp of the language before you can get your instrument to talk the talk!

So to answer the OP, Yes you do need to know some theroy to play with other people IMHO!

[Doddy]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1147891' date='Mar 2 2011, 11:45 PM']The language of music is the music though, not the names we ascribe to aspects of it. I find music theory really interesting but someone can be such a complete ear player that while they're fluent in the language of music, they're unable to speak in English/(Italian) about what they're doing. That's only a problem when the direct communication through the music fails.[/quote]

But,if someone asks a 'complete ear player' to play a particular chord sequence or whatever,and they have to search around because they
haven't heard it before hand,then they are not 'fluent in the language of music'. Not all music is communicated aurally,so unless you
are happy playing within narrow confines,you really do need at least a basic understanding of theory.
No one is saying you need to know everything,but I would expect anyone I work with to know the difference between
major and minor....it's basic stuff for any musician,especially if they are playing a chordal instrument.

[chris_b]

Our musical theory only applies to a very small part of the music that's been made by humans.

Music without theory is easily made and music has been performed by many cultures for thousands of years before theory was invented.

[endorka]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1147940' date='Mar 3 2011, 02:02 AM']Our musical theory only applies to a very small part of the music that's been made by humans.

Music without theory is easily made and music has been performed by many cultures for thousands of years before theory was invented.[/quote]

That's true, but from what I can gather, music of this kind almost universally consists of simple melodies over a drone note.

I'm not saying this is necessarilly bad, but it is limited.

It's a long way and a lot of theory from there to Gershwin.

Jennifer

Edited March 3, 2011 by endorka

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='Count Bassy' post='1147423' date='Mar 2 2011, 06:04 PM']Theory aside, I'd be concerned that the keyboard player couldn't [i]hear[/i] the difference between a major and a minor (its a pretty fundamental difference in sound), though to be fair it could have been lost in the cacophony.[/quote]

Yeah, she was trying to be polite, it was fairly obvious. She has since quit, I understand her reasons.

[Bilbo]

I have no problem with people who don't know, just with players who celebrate the fact and use the ignorance of others to justify their own ('my favourite musician doesn't know any theory so I don't need to' kind of thing).

Just a small point: I don't think it is reasonable to say that bebop was defined after lots of the music that exemplifies it was written/recorded. I think its developments were conscious and came from a position of earned knowledge built upon exisitng knowledge. Its developments were consciously intellectual.

[BottomE]

The more theory you acquire the wider your possibilities. Its that simple.

[Ancient Mariner]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1147891' date='Mar 2 2011, 11:45 PM']The language of music is the music though, not the names we ascribe to aspects of it. I find music theory really interesting but someone can be such a complete ear player that while they're fluent in the language of music, they're unable to speak in English/(Italian) about what they're doing. That's only a problem when the direct communication through the music fails.[/quote]

Thank you.

I suspect that guitarists will generally be less up on music theory because they are generally the lead instrument. However since bass is primarily an accompanying instrument, knowing theory is much more helpful, if not essential.

I have some basic theory: enough that most of the time I can explain where a song more-or-less goes. However I can usually hear reasonably well, and as long as the people I usually play with can give me the key we're playing in then I can usually hear the chord changes and play along quite happily. The thing is, music theory isn't (generally) very exciting to learn, and it doesn't necessarily make you a better musician unless you can't hear where the music goes and then need to be told/work it out. However it does make explaining to others less difficult, unless they don't have much theory either.

I remember an interview with Yngwie M - he was talking about how much he'd studied, all the theory he'd picked up. In the next breath he explained that when he solo'd he'd deliberately forget the theory and just play what he felt like playing. Having theory won't automatically make you capable of musical expression, although it can make you a very good form of biological playback device.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Ancient Mariner

[fatback]

Also, if you know some theory you don't feel you need to play the same line to a song every time; you can experiment and still know you're going to sound good. You can come up with many more ways to play over the same sequence.

Can't be bad, and it's a lot more fun.

Edited March 3, 2011 by fatback

[Doddy]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148307' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:12 PM']I suspect that guitarists will generally be less up on music theory because they are generally the lead instrument. However since bass is primarily an accompanying instrument, knowing theory is much more helpful, if not essential.[/quote]
Being a lead instrument isn't a good excuse-what about all the horn players who know what they are doing?
The only reasons a lot of guitar players don't know much is because they can play purely by patterns and shapes,and they can't be bothered.

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148307' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:12 PM']I remember an interview with Yngwie M - he was talking about how much he'd studied, all the theory he'd picked up. In the next breath he explained that when he solo'd he'd deliberately forget the theory and just play what he felt like playing. Having theory won't automatically make you capable of musical expression, although it can make you a very good form of biological playback device.[/quote]

But you are forgetting an important point someone about Yngwie.
He has studied to a such a point that he doesn't have to think about the theory. It has become ingrained,and he can just play with out consciously thinking about it.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148307' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:12 PM']In the next breath he explained that when he solo'd he'd deliberately forget the theory and just play what he felt like playing.[/quote]

That's how it works. We 'theorites' (have I invented a new word?) don't sit there thinking 'ooh, great, I can wack in that flattened fifth substitution there followed by an altered dominant'. We use our ears the same as anyone else but our ears are better informed because we spend hours running scales and arpeggios and chord sequences and subtitutions. Occasionally, I will solve a problem by intellectualising it in real time and I am almost always disappointed by the obviousness of the solution but, in the main, its your ear that guides you not your head. But the important lesson is that your ear is educated and informed not just intuitive.



[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148307' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:12 PM']Having theory won't automatically make you capable of musical expression, although it can make you a very good form of biological playback device.[/quote]

No but it will massively improve your chances. Massively. And not having theory won't automatically make you capable either.

And why the 'biological playback device' comment? There is an implied assumption that 'theorites' play with their heads and 'luddites (see what I did there)' play with their hearts. In fact, theorites play with their hearts and minds whilst those without technical knowledge are only able to use their hearts and minds . The only difference is the amount of information available to the informed mind vs the uninformed. The availability of theory is no guarantee of anything but I woudl argue it improves your odds. I know which camp I would want to be in.

[icastle]

Les Dawson's piano playing wasn't accidental - he started out as a pianist and had the background musical theory to know [b]exactly [/b]which note was going to have the desired effect.

[Cat Burrito]

When I clicked on this thread I actually thought "basic" was going to be a little more advanced than not knowing the difference between a major or a minor; or knowing the key of a tune.

My theory is about the same standard as most musicians I work with but I am always hugely impressed by those who put the work in and know more. Sadly it's not a sexy subject but the reality is that your playing will become a lot sexier if you know your stuff.

[Doddy]

[quote name='BurritoBass' post='1148373' date='Mar 3 2011, 02:03 PM']When I clicked on this thread I actually thought "basic" was going to be a little more advanced than not knowing the difference between a major or a minor; or knowing the key of a tune.[/quote]

You'd be surprised how many people don't know the keys of tunes,and instead base it on the first chord.

[burno70]

I think it depends on what your doing and what you want to do.

My bands guitarist knows pretty much zero theory, only has a loose idea of where the notes are on his fretboard but to compensate has perfect pitch hearing, great intuition and fantastic feel (is one of the best guitarists I've been fortunate enough to play with). Within our rock band it works really well, I don't get frustrated that he doesn't know certain terminology - no matter how basic and he doesn't brag that he's such a great player even without any theory.

I think this this may hamper him outside of a band envoironment, for example if he ever decided to do session work or take part in a musical for instance. But he's never shown any inclination to do those things so I don't think it would even matter.

[Skol303]

Just to quickly chime in here...

I used to know f-all about music theory/notation and played exclusively using tabs. Telling me to play a 'C' would have meant nothing to me: you'd have had to say "A string, third fret", or whatever...

I'm currently learning notation - very slowly but surely - and I have to say that I'm finding it to be both a) a huge boost to my understanding of how music is composed; and surprisingly interesting and addictive!

I don't play with other musicians, as I'm more of a studio geek to be honest, but I'm now able to identify rudimentary notes on a keyboard too, so it's proving very useful for me personally.

Just giving my experience as a newbie! ;-)

[Ancient Mariner]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1148357' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:46 PM']That's how it works. We 'theorites' (have I invented a new word?) don't sit there thinking 'ooh, great, I can wack in that flattened fifth substitution there followed by an altered dominant'. We use our ears the same as anyone else but our ears are better informed because we spend hours running scales and arpeggios and chord sequences and subtitutions. Occasionally, I will solve a problem by intellectualising it in real time and I am almost always disappointed by the obviousness of the solution but, in the main, its your ear that guides you not your head. But the important lesson is that your ear is educated and informed not just intuitive.[/quote]

One could argue that being able to hear a musical progression is evidence that one's ear had been trained and educated - the thing missing is the mechanism to explain what you hear to someone else using 'English' to describe the flow of notes.


[quote]No but it will massively improve your chances. Massively. And not having theory won't automatically make you capable either.

And why the 'biological playback device' comment? There is an implied assumption that 'theorites' play with their heads and 'luddites (see what I did there)' play with their hearts. In fact, theorites play with their hearts and minds whilst those without technical knowledge are only able to use their hearts and minds .[/quote]

Apparently we all play with our hearts and minds after all?



I don't entirely disagree - with the statement you didn't quite mean to make. The thing is, a luddite won't think "I'd love to substitute a flattened 5th there", but instead they'll think "I'd like the music to progress like this" because they'll know what that note sounds like, even though they don't know it's a flattened 5th.

TBH I would expect that a musician knowing more theory to be a better musician than one who does not - generally speaking - because they will have a love and enthusiasm for music that has driven them to learn the theory. Perhaps they are better because their minds can understand how music is built, rather than just identifying shades and tones in the wash. But to me (and the reason I put the comment about the biological playback device in) is that theory doesn't make the musician - musical creativity is something else. The theory is a tool, a very useful one, but a tool only. Otherwise we'd have a lot of computers creating music far in advance of the best human players.

[Bilbo]

The introduction to Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory Book says

'A great jazz solo consists of 1% magic and 99% of stuff that is Explainable, Analyzable, Categorizable and Doable. This book is mostly about the 99% stuff'.

I would (and do) argue that this apllies to all music, not just jazz solos, and that floundering around in the dark is not the fastest way to get from here to where you want to be. Theory is like a map that will save you time. If you make the same journey every day, you won't need it. If you got to lots of different places all of the time, you could still do without it but you would waste a lot of time up blind alleys, on inscruitable one way systems and looking for a car park

For those whose careers are a sequence of covers gigs playing 'those' tunes, then leave the theory alone by all means. But if you are a player who wants to have a long and creative career with all the tools available to you, take a look at the stuff and see where it takes you.

And learn to read music

[lowdown]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1148541' date='Mar 3 2011, 04:20 PM']But if you are a player who wants to have a long and creative career with all the tools available to you, take a look at the stuff and see where it takes you.[/quote]


I agree with that, and after reading through another thread about getting sacked, i started to wonder why so many people were getting the sack so often.
and blaming it on the band, or saying 'i am crap'.Then maybe not thinking 'why am i crap'? and doing something about it. But no, it always seems to be the fault of others.
Just an observation from another thread that seems to have Similarities with this thread.



Garry

Edited March 3, 2011 by lowdown

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148520' date='Mar 3 2011, 04:07 PM']One could argue that being able to hear a musical progression is evidence that one's ear had been trained and educated - the thing missing is the mechanism to explain what you hear to someone else using 'English' to describe the flow of notes.[/quote]

All helpful enough, but it must be hard to play with anybody else, if Marty McFly's explanation of Johnny B. Goode is gibberish to you, you might not be able to play with other people. That was as basic as it gets.
But if the Starlighters hadn't known what "1-4-5 12 bar in Bb watch me for the changes" or something like that meant, then Marty would have been wiped from history...

[BottomE]

For me it was about overcoming the brick wall i hit when i realised that i wasn't learning anything new on bass. I was recycling the same licks and patterns with no idea really of where to go next. Everything was starting on the root note.

Accepting that i needed to learn theory was harder than the theory itself. What i do now is build theory into my practice sessions. Nothing "heavy" - a nice slow progression in learning that i try to make relevant to any songs that i am working on at the time. It then becomes extremely useful

I am no way a good technical musician yet (still average over 2 seconds on the note trainer ) but i am really glad i am on the road to becoming one and enjoying the journey.

[Lfalex v1.1]

I have watched this thread with interest from afar. And thus far, it has focussed entirely upon the activities of the fretting hand.
Are we all in tune, and know (theoretically) what's coming next, but are out of time?
And which is worse? Out of tune or out of time (or wrong time signature) I'm no [b]Theorist[/b] (Bilbo! ) yet I've had my share of explaining the difference between 3/4 and 6/8 to some people...

And as for the Theorist/Luddite analogy, I think I prefer Fighter/Boxer. Seems to fit. If a little violent.

[Doddy]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148520' date='Mar 3 2011, 04:07 PM']One could argue that being able to hear a musical progression is evidence that one's ear had been trained and educated - the thing missing is the mechanism to explain what you hear to someone else using 'English' to describe the flow of notes.[/quote]
But,as has been said many times before,ear training isn't exclusive to those that don't know theory. If you are handed a chord chart
or asked to play a progression and you can't play it,it doesn't matter how great your ear is....You'll get fired.

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148520' date='Mar 3 2011, 04:07 PM']I don't entirely disagree - with the statement you didn't quite mean to make. The thing is, a luddite won't think "I'd love to substitute a flattened 5th there", but instead they'll think "I'd like the music to progress like this" because they'll know what that note sounds like, even though they don't know it's a flattened 5th.[/quote]

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.

[Doddy]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='1148649' date='Mar 3 2011, 05:42 PM']And which is worse? Out of tune or out of time (or wrong time signature) I'm no [b]Theorist[/b] (Bilbo! ) yet I've had my share of explaining the difference between 3/4 and 6/8 to some people...[/quote]

It's all part of the same thing.
There is a big difference between 3/4 and 6/8 and it's as important to know that as it is to know the
difference between the key of G major and G minor.