Theory and Reading Poll

[xilddx]

[quote name='dood' post='1242034' date='May 23 2011, 06:57 PM']Heh heh!! Funny you should mention Cello - it's an instrument that has always interested me from a distance. I love it's timbre and the range that it covers. Maybe that's why I like wandering up the neck of my basses a bit as well as the low LOWS![/quote]
Dan, if you haven't already, you really should check out Stephen Isserlis's version of Britten's Third Suite for Cello Op.87 and Thrinos for solo cello. It is sublime! The cd also has John Taverner's Protecting Veil on it too, which is one of my all time favourite orchestral pieces, so the CD is amazing value for money.

[url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Tavener-The-Protecting-Veil/dp/B001IOUD8Q/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306175339&sr=301-1"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Tavener-The-P...39&sr=301-1[/url]

(see Bilbo, I listen to more "challenging" music )

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1241418' date='May 23 2011, 12:13 PM']What we have arrived at before in this conversation is that the two are not mutually exclusive. [b]Non readers often seem to suggest that readers are somehow deficient in the groove/time analysis.[/b] In my experience this has turned out to be a total fallacy (allowing for the normal parameters of ratio sh*t-sh*t hot players)[/quote]

I don't recall suggesting this, Jake.

[Norris]

I have done a lot of reading & theory in my youth (grade 8 trombone - orchestras, brass band, big band, etc. ), but not really on the bass, so now I'm rather rusty. I've not really needed it since I stopped blowing and drank beer instead

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1241533' date='May 23 2011, 01:12 PM']If we are talking about chord tones-which I am-it is a 'wrong' note. I'm not talking about using it as a
chromatic passing tone. In that case,the timbre and octave don't matter-it would be a 'wrong' note,and that
is not subjective.[/quote]
IME Timbre and octave are massively important in being able to fit notes that in theory shouldn't go together. You have obviously never played in band with anyone into hardcore sound design/synthesis otherwise you'd have discovered this.

Although I don't have the dexterity to play a C7/B on the guitar I can manage Bb7/A which to my ears has a pleasing tension and fits nicely into a riff with A7, Cm and D9 chords.

If was still in the band I was playing with 5 years ago I would now be working this riff up into a full song, but the chord structure doesn't suit the style of either of my current bands so I've just filled the idea away for a time when it will be appropriate. Many thanks for the suggestion Doddy!

[Dood]

[quote name='silddx' post='1242102' date='May 23 2011, 07:30 PM']Dan, if you haven't already, you really should check out Stephen Isserlis's version of Britten's Third Suite for Cello Op.87 and Thrinos for solo cello. It is sublime! The cd also has John Taverner's Protecting Veil on it too, which is one of my all time favourite orchestral pieces, so the CD is amazing value for money.

[url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Tavener-The-Protecting-Veil/dp/B001IOUD8Q/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306175339&sr=301-1"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Tavener-The-P...39&sr=301-1[/url]

(see Bilbo, I listen to more "challenging" music )[/quote]


Awwww bless ya! I'm gonna give the excerpts a listen right now!! THANKS

[xilddx]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1242146' date='May 23 2011, 07:54 PM']IME Timbre and octave are massively important in being able to fit notes that in theory shouldn't go together. You have obviously never played in band with anyone into hardcore sound design/synthesis otherwise you'd have discovered this.

Although I don't have the dexterity to play a C7/B on the guitar I can manage Bb7/A which to my ears has a pleasing tension and fits nicely into a riff with A7, Cm and D9 chords.

If was still in the band I was playing with 5 years ago I would now be working this riff up into a full song, but the chord structure doesn't suit the style of either of my current bands so I've just filled the idea away for a time when it will be appropriate. Many thanks for the suggestion Doddy![/quote]
I completely agree with this. Octave is especially important as to whether notes can work together or not.

[xilddx]

[quote name='dood' post='1242157' date='May 23 2011, 08:03 PM']Awwww bless ya! I'm gonna give the excerpts a listen right now!! THANKS [/quote]
My pleasure mate, I love cello too, but I can't stand Bach cello suites and the like, call me a philistine, but they're often a lazy choice for bassists who just want to check out some cello, and I just don't like the composition, lord knows I've tried to like it

Isserlis is incredible, what he gets out of a cello is heart-wrenching and shiver-inducing.

Here's a small taste just see if I can get people to buy it, the Introduction: [attachment=80764:09_Third...e__Lento.mp3]

Edited May 23, 2011 by silddx

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1242146' date='May 23 2011, 07:54 PM']IME Timbre and octave are massively important in being able to fit notes that in theory shouldn't go together. You have obviously never played in band with anyone into hardcore sound design/synthesis otherwise you'd have discovered this.

Although I don't have the dexterity to play a C7/B on the guitar I can manage Bb7/A which to my ears has a pleasing tension and fits nicely into a riff with A7, Cm and D9 chords.

If was still in the band I was playing with 5 years ago I would now be working this riff up into a full song, but the chord structure doesn't suit the style of either of my current bands so I've just filled the idea away for a time when it will be appropriate. Many thanks for the suggestion Doddy![/quote]

Have you got any examples of playing for want of a better word wrong tones sounding correct because of changing the octave? As a novice theory person (although I am learning) I'm a bit confuddled by it.

Come on Doddy get your theory together, I will pop round if you need any help

[BigRedX]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1242240' date='May 23 2011, 09:07 PM']Have you got any examples of playing for want of a better word wrong tones sounding correct because of changing the octave? As a novice theory person (although I am learning) I'm a bit confuddled by it.

Come on Doddy get your theory together, I will pop round if you need any help [/quote]
I have several song demos recorded in the late 80s using the octave technique to get technically "wrong" notes to work with various chords. If I can find the cassettes they are recorded on and have the time I'll get them digitised and uploaded, but it won't be before next week at the earliest I'm afraid.

I'm sure in the mean time someone will come up with something more mainstream that uses this.

[xilddx]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1242314' date='May 23 2011, 09:45 PM']I have several song demos recorded in the late 80s using the octave technique to get technically "wrong" notes to work with various chords. If I can find the cassettes they are recorded on and have the time I'll get them digitised and uploaded, but it won't be before next week at the earliest I'm afraid.

I'm sure in the mean time someone will come up with something more mainstream that uses this.[/quote]
Try a minor 2nd against the tonic, then try shifting either note an octave, that should serve to illustrate the very basic principle.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1242314' date='May 23 2011, 09:45 PM']I have several song demos recorded in the late 80s using the octave technique to get technically "wrong" notes to work with various chords. If I can find the cassettes they are recorded on and have the time I'll get them digitised and uploaded, but it won't be before next week at the earliest I'm afraid.

I'm sure in the mean time someone will come up with something more mainstream that uses this.[/quote]
Ta

[quote name='silddx' post='1242347' date='May 23 2011, 10:04 PM']Try a minor 2nd against the tonic, then try shifting either note an octave, that should serve to illustrate the very basic principle.[/quote]
OK I will give it a go........

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='silddx' post='1242347' date='May 23 2011, 10:04 PM']Try a minor 2nd against the tonic, then try shifting either note an octave, that should serve to illustrate the very basic principle.[/quote]

I find a gin with a tonic works very well.

[Doddy]

[quote name='silddx' post='1242347' date='May 23 2011, 10:04 PM']Try a minor 2nd against the tonic, then try shifting either note an octave, that should serve to illustrate the very basic principle.[/quote]

It's also makes a fairly common flat 9 chord

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1242396' date='May 23 2011, 10:34 PM']It's also makes a fairly common flat 9 chord[/quote]
This is the thing with theory I find, Just when you think you have invented something no one else has you realise or are shown that it's just the same 1-3-5 as another chord in a different order

You will be proud of my scales and fingering next time you see me Doddy even my pinky is getting a workout now! Reading has slowed down a bit though as I have been busy playing

[stingrayPete1977]

So what has the poll proved so far? The theory one I think is about as expected although I think the "I have an excellent command of theory but rarely need to use it" camp should probably be "I have an excellent command of theory but rarely realise I'm using it anymore"

The reading is a bit more spread out but im surprised how many tabbers would like to read from the bun fights in previous threads?

[lowdown]

[quote name='silddx' post='1242347' date='May 23 2011, 10:04 PM']Try a minor 2nd against the tonic, then try shifting either note an octave, that should serve to illustrate the very basic principle.[/quote]


Some nutter called Bernard Herrmann had a go at that, the Gypsies in the Orchestra thought he had been sniffing glue.




Ancient music used drones all the time, some peasant blowing his horn while a busty wench fingered her Harp up the Octave.





Garry

Edited May 23, 2011 by lowdown

[xilddx]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1242396' date='May 23 2011, 10:34 PM']It's also makes a fairly common flat 9 chord[/quote]
Exactly my point, and the basis of what BRX was saying.

[ZMech]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1242435' date='May 23 2011, 11:08 PM']So what has the poll proved so far? The theory one I think is about as expected although I think the "I have an excellent command of theory but rarely need to use it" camp should probably be "I have an excellent command of theory but rarely realise I'm using it anymore" [/quote]

Surely this is to be expected. I would've that that it's a sign you've learnt the theory well when you no longer have to consciously think about it. My aim for the summer is to at least take my first step in this direction.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='ZMech' post='1242474' date='May 23 2011, 11:48 PM']Surely this is to be expected. I would've that that it's a sign you've learnt the theory well when you no longer have to consciously think about it. My aim for the summer is to at least take my first step in this direction.[/quote]
Be prepared to get very addicted to learning more and more! Fun

[dc2009]

So I was thinking last night: for those of you that sight read a score, when you read, how do you convert that into bass playing? What I mean to say is, do you read a note on the score and think, that's an A and then go for the most convenient A position on your fretboard, or do you read a note and think, that corresponds to a certain position of my fingers on the neck/fretboard (i.e. you read a note which happens to be a D and your hand instinctively is at 5th fret on the A string, without actually considering that the note is a D)?

I think this is akin to learning another language in a language other than your mother tongue, as in to say, do you 'translate' the word twice, or can you bypass the intermediate stage.

[Wil]

When you sight read, you don't think of the note by it's name typically, you tend to associate the dot on the page with the note position on the fretboard at a subconcious level. You tend to have to read the bar ahead of the one you're playing with more complex pieces so you don't really have time to think "that's an A, which is here on the fretboard".

So, I'd say to sight read fluently, at a decent pace, you have to have practiced it to the point where you no longer have to think about it.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Wil

[Bilbo]

[quote name='dc2009' post='1242739' date='May 24 2011, 11:22 AM']So I was thinking last night: for those of you that sight read a score, when you read, how do you convert that into bass playing? What I mean to say is, do you read a note on the score and think, that's an A and then go for the most convenient A position on your fretboard, or do you read a note and think, that corresponds to a certain position of my fingers on the neck/fretboard (i.e. you read a note which happens to be a D and your hand instinctively is at 5th fret on the A string, without actually considering that the note is a D)?

I think this is akin to learning another language in a language other than your mother tongue, as in to say, do you 'translate' the word twice, or can you bypass the intermediate stage.[/quote]

Depends what you are reading and where you are with that part of the process.

When you start to learn, you tend to read every note and 'translate' it and then decide which note to play and where. As you get better at reading, you tend to read in larger chunks (like reading words instead of letters). I tend to 'see' whole bars as a rhythmic phrase and then 'read' the note names with this in mind. You do make choices based on a sense of where the chart is taking you. So a D may be the 5th fret of the A string or may be an open string. It gets more and more complicated in extended passages at speed but these are, frankly, rare and most charts are quite simple (even the complex bits tend to be one or two bars long then repeated). As you get more and more fluent at reading, you become less and less conscious of it as a process, just like when you read words. Personally, I find that, due to a lack of practice, I sometimes get thrown by the higher numbers of accidentals (B or Fsharp) and, in those keys, I turn into Captain Klutz until I can lock my brain into the right key. Its usually sorted out by a rehearsal/band call and sorted before public performances but, in the world of New York sessions, I would fail.

[lowdown]

[quote name='Wil' post='1242744' date='May 24 2011, 11:25 AM']When you sight read, you don't think of the note by it's name typically, you tend to associate the dot on the page with the note position on the fretboard at a subconcious level. You tend to have to read the bar ahead of the one you're playing with more complex pieces so you don't really have time to think "that's an A, which is here on the fretboard".

So, I'd say to sight read fluently, at a decent pace, you have to have practiced it to the point where you no longer have to think about it.[/quote]


Pretty well summed up.
One good thing when reading Bass charts - is that you tend to get a lot of 2/4/8 bar repetition, so it makes it easier to scan ahead for tricky phrases,
key/time changes, codas etc - and more importantly when you are doing a show, you can keep you eyes on the MD/conductor.




Garry

Edited May 24, 2011 by lowdown

[Doddy]

[quote name='dc2009' post='1242739' date='May 24 2011, 11:22 AM']So I was thinking last night: for those of you that sight read a score, when you read, how do you convert that into bass playing? What I mean to say is, do you read a note on the score and think, that's an A and then go for the most convenient A position on your fretboard, or do you read a note and think, that corresponds to a certain position of my fingers on the neck/fretboard (i.e. you read a note which happens to be a D and your hand instinctively is at 5th fret on the A string, without actually considering that the note is a D)?[/quote]

When I'm reading,I'm not thinking A,B,C# or whatever.If I see a D (middle line) written,I know I can play it in 3 different positions (on a 4 string) depending on which is easiest at the time.I'm not thinking 'that's a D,so I can play that here'-I'm just seeing the note and playing it. That's why you really have to know the fingerboard aswell.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1242777' date='May 24 2011, 11:44 AM']When I'm reading,I'm not thinking A,B,C# or whatever.If I see a D (middle line) written,I know I can play it in 3 different positions (on a 4 string) depending on which is easiest at the time.I'm not thinking 'that's a D,so I can play that here'-I'm just seeing the note and playing it. That's why you really have to know the fingerboard aswell.[/quote]

This is an interesting conceptualisation, which for me encapsulates some of the inherent complexities in trying to self-analyse brain processes such as music 'theory'. At the synaptic level your brain has formed connections equating D written, with D the note with D on a fretboard. You don't consciously articulate those connections but they're there, as Bilbo's explanation sort of illustrates.

I get frustrated by some of the back and forth over music theory because most of the argument stems from a purely semantic disagreement over what music theory is and isn't. A lot of classical musical theory was formally defined 'after the fact', the rules being arrived at by a gradual evolution led by the ear of composers/musicians, and enacted through composition and performance. Formal theory in that sense is completely and inherently non-essential, except for those genres where abstracted theory led musical development, eg the transition from late romantic to 20th century stuff like serialism and synthetic scales. Music that some would argue 'sounds' soulless and mechanical, but that's sort of incidental.

Is music theory useful? Of course, it's a learning tool. Is it essential? Not with respect to formal theory based around abstraction of a sound, unless you prefer 'listening' to your music in written form.

So why is there always this debate? Because some people equate formal music theory with ear training. Incorrectly, I'd say. Ear training is completely essential for understanding what you play and being able to compose/improvise in any style. Theory can help with ear training, a lot, but its definitely not absolutely necessary - there are plenty of 'non-musicians' who enjoy music, after all, and what's more can easily spot a particular genre and spot when something goes wrong/out of step with that genre. If any level of formal music theory was necessary for aural understanding then that wouldn't be possible. I'd go so far as to say that even when using musical theory to learn we're still led by the ears - music theory allows us to put convenient labels on what our ears [i]already know[/i] sounds right or wrong. Whether that's useful to you is probably down to how well you respond to different types of learning. Probably most people will find it useful, but there are a few who it'll definitely hinder more than it'll help.

Reading itself is another issue and I think it's useful that silddx separated it from theory here.