Theory and Reading Poll

[Bilbo]

Music theory is the Haynes Manual of the music world. Without it, you can still fix the car.

Eventually.

[Doddy]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1243009' date='May 24 2011, 02:55 PM']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.[/quote]
I think the thing is,as a listener you don't need to know anything other than if you like it,but as a musician
I think that there are basics that you should know. Sure you could play a major 3rd over a minor,wince and
correct it,or you could take away the guess work and play the right note straight away.Of course you still use
your ears,but having the knowledge makes things easier.
The only way that it will ever 'hinder more than it will help' is if you let it hinder you.

[fatboyslimfast]

:ThumbsUp Bilbo

That works for me.

I put that I can read tab and wish I could read more. I am attempting to read more music, but at the same time as learning where the notes are on the fretboard.

Should I be pausing one and concentrating on the other, or is doing both the best way?

Edited May 24, 2011 by fatboyslimfast

[Doddy]

[quote name='fatboyslimfast' post='1243035' date='May 24 2011, 03:21 PM']:ThumbsUp Bilbo

That works for me.

I put that I can read tab and wish I could read more. I am attempting to read more music, but at the same time as learning where the notes are on the fretboard.

Should I be pausing one and concentrating on the other, or is doing both the best way?[/quote]
Do them both together so you learn to associate the stave with the fingerboard.

[fatboyslimfast]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243039' date='May 24 2011, 03:22 PM']Do them both together so you learn to associate the stave with the fingerboard.[/quote]

Thx - always handy to know I'm heading in the right direction. I really want to learn more about theory, as am enjoying picking out root notes when playing along with songs, but don't know where to take them from there, without copying parrot fashion...

[Conan]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243034' date='May 24 2011, 03:21 PM']Sure you could play a major 3rd over a minor,wince and correct it,or you could take away the guess work and play [i][b]the right note [/b][/i]straight away.[/quote]

I'm not sure I like or agree with the idea that there are "wrong" notes. Certainly there are some notes that sound strange in certain places, but to me a 'wrong' note is a note that is played when the intention was to play a different note. But sometimes the mistake can sound better than the intended one, so where does that leave us?

I don't read. At 45 years old with a family and a full-time job I am unlikely to ever find myself in a situation where this will hold me back. Some of the members on this forum are professional or semi-professional bass players, whose income may depend upon their ability to read. Obviously in their case it is a desirable if not prerequisite skill. For us weekend warriors and part-timers I see it as a luxury. I would like to be able to donate the time to it to see what difference it makes, but in the foreseeable future that is unlikely.

I know a small bit of theory - but not enough that it makes much difference to what I play. I like to think that I have a reasonable ear and feel, and those have stood me fairly well over the years.

However, if my personal circumstances changed and I found myself potentially having to rely on playing bass for part or all of my livelihood; I'm pretty sure I would put a lot of effort into learning more theory and how to read!

Better to have it and not use it than not to have it at all...

Edited May 24, 2011 by Conan

[JellyKnees]

I think the extent to which you need to learn theory is entirely dependant on the context in which you play. Jazzers, classical musos, session players etc. all no doubt need to know a lot of theory to do what they do, the rest of us mere mortals generally less so...

Most rock/pop/funk/reggae etc. is really not that difficult to write/play/learn by ear. I have some knowledge of scales, chords and harmony but only at a fairly rudimentary level, however like many other people on here, what I do have is a pretty good ear which I've developed over the last 30 years of playing, and this has always been more than adequate within the confines of what I have done.

On the subject of 'wrong notes', I think it depends entirely on your ears and pre-conceptions of what 'good' notes should be. As an example, I was putting some programmed synth parts on a new song of ours the other day - I accidentally copied a part to the 'wong' place in the song, however I thought one of the notes sounded really good, so I left it in (it was a G over a stop, straight after an F#min chord). I played it to our guitarist and he thought it was a mistake and didn't like it, I then played it to our pianist/singer - she thought it sounded great, so we kept it in!

The way I look at it is, music theory is a set of rules that someone devised because they thought it should work/sound that way. Like all rules, they can be useful but can also be inappropriate in some circumstances. Trust your ears - if its sounds good to you, go with it.

[ZMech]

[quote name='JellyKnees' post='1243161' date='May 24 2011, 05:10 PM']a pretty good ear which I've developed over the last 30 years of playing[/quote]
Here in is the difference. Learning something by analysing and understanding the rules, even if they're only a framework as with music, is normally much quicker than simply randomly experimenting with the options and slowly accomodating the rules into your intuition. After all, it's due to this point that teachers exist.

I also disagree with the context thing, there's no reason you can't use more interesting chords/harmony in rock, many of the great bands did, and that's what helped make them great!

Edited May 24, 2011 by ZMech

[Doddy]

[quote name='JellyKnees' post='1243161' date='May 24 2011, 05:10 PM']The way I look at it is, music theory is a set of rules that someone devised because they thought it should work/sound that way. Like all rules, they can be useful but can also be inappropriate in some circumstances. Trust your ears - if its sounds good to you, go with it.[/quote]

I think the use of the word 'rules' causes a lot of problems. Theory isn't about rules...it's about facts.
A major chord is made up of scale tones 1,3,5. You can't change or break that,in the same way that
1+1=2.
When it comes to writing your own music you can do what you want but the fact is that the theory behind
chords and harmony and all that stuff is still the same. As a sideman who may get hired to read,decipher
chord charts,or just busk the more knowledge you have about things like chord construction and the like,the better.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243034' date='May 24 2011, 03:21 PM']I think the thing is,as a listener you don't need to know anything other than if you like it,but as a musician
I think that there are basics that you should know. Sure you could play a major 3rd over a minor,wince and
correct it,or you could take away the guess work and play the right note straight away.Of course you still use
your ears,but having the knowledge makes things easier.
The only way that it will ever 'hinder more than it will help' is if you let it hinder you.[/quote]

But I think you've confused 'music theory' with 'memory'! You don't need any formal background to remember what works and what doesn't. As a small child I learned perfectly well from playing around on the piano that a major third generally sounded a bit crap on top of a minor, and I'd avoid doing it, long before I learned minor/major or any formal theory. Music theory then gave me a handy way of labelling this phenomenon.

Your comment about 'letting it hinder you' seems a bit strange. I don't see why you're so insistent that people don't and shouldn't conceptualise something in different ways, when education research and neuroscience have shown patently that that's not the case. Most people doing 'good' university music degrees are probably pretty good at abstract theorising and therefore find it useful, but that's a pretty selected bunch based as much on academic aptitude as actual performance. If theory was essential to practice then our most brilliant composers would also be our most brilliant mathematicians/whatever. I'm sure there's a correlation but it's nowhere near tight. To draw analogy, someone can be fluent in a language and even produce brilliant prose and poetry with no formal linguistic training. Why? Because the linguistic rules are all encapsulated, defined and communicated by the spoken language. Language skills and linguistic analytical skills are related but different things.

I don't see the point in arguing about the usefulness of music theory as a learning aid if you don't first define clearly what theory actually is and second understand how learning happens at a fundamental level. There is a lot of science that has tested these ideas and would inform the debate.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243185' date='May 24 2011, 05:36 PM']Theory isn't about rules...it's about facts.[/quote]

Fact: a 'fact' is not a 'theory'. They are two completely different things.

I think this is why you're misunderstanding the issue (sorry if that sounds condescending!)

[dc2009]

As far as my own playing goes, I rely solely on my ear I think. When I am given a song to write a bassline to in a band environment, I almost always have what I want it to sound like in my head, and then play it. I wouldn't say that my rudimentary knowledge of scales and keys assists me at all, but I know that from one note to the next, where I am likely to want to put my fingers, it might take a coupla goes to hammer out the precise bits of it, but it's there in my head, knowing any musical theory or not.

I do however hope to start to learn to sight read score, but I do like my current arrangement where the numbers on the tab give me the position, and the score notes give me the duration. IMO tab is the most logical and sensible way to relay hand positions for fretting instruments (violins etc included). This is to do with how you fluent sight readers no longer read the name 'D', but initially you did. Similarly, I suppose I've used tabs for so long I don't read 3 and think third fret, I simply remember where my hand goes.

I think that if the instruments were re-invented today, or on an alien world, you would label the positions numerically, not according to the note they produce.

The other issue for me with wishing to learn to sight read is that I have previously been in bands where we use different tunings, and I can envisage being in such a position again (my current band does use drop D on the one song too). It is not useful to learn that a D on the score corresponds to however many fret positions on the fretboard as doddy put it earlier, if those positions are not necessarily always the same - obviously if you never play out of standard tuning they are, but if you want to play in a different tuning, tab is without a doubt the more logical system.

[stingrayPete1977]

Still not locked yet?

[stingrayPete1977]

Get a fiver

And how could you number all the notes with at least 80 choices even on a 4 string? If they had what would you of called B string notes, Minus numbers? All other methods including tab limit you to that instrument as you say you now know what a 3 on the second string is or whatever but if you can read an F is an F and all you need to do now is learn where the notes are on the instrument of choice rather than it's equivalent sort of tab just for that instrument.

[quote name='dc2009' post='1243214' date='May 24 2011, 06:13 PM']As far as my own playing goes, I rely solely on my ear I think. When I am given a song to write a bassline to in a band environment, I almost always have what I want it to sound like in my head, and then play it. I wouldn't say that my rudimentary knowledge of scales and keys assists me at all, but I know that from one note to the next, where I am likely to want to put my fingers, it might take a coupla goes to hammer out the precise bits of it, but it's there in my head, knowing any musical theory or not.

I do however hope to start to learn to sight read score, but I do like my current arrangement where the numbers on the tab give me the position, and the score notes give me the duration. IMO tab is the most logical and sensible way to relay hand positions for fretting instruments (violins etc included). This is to do with how you fluent sight readers no longer read the name 'D', but initially you did. Similarly, I suppose I've used tabs for so long I don't read 3 and think third fret, I simply remember where my hand goes.

I think that if the instruments were re-invented today, or on an alien world, you would label the positions numerically, not according to the note they produce.

The other issue for me with wishing to learn to sight read is that I have previously been in bands where we use different tunings, and I can envisage being in such a position again (my current band does use drop D on the one song too). It is not useful to learn that a D on the score corresponds to however many fret positions on the fretboard as doddy put it earlier, if those positions are not necessarily always the same - obviously if you never play out of standard tuning they are, but if you want to play in a different tuning, tab is without a doubt the more logical system.[/quote]

[JellyKnees]

[quote name='ZMech' post='1243169' date='May 24 2011, 05:21 PM']Here in is the difference. Learning something by analysing and understanding the rules, even if they're only a framework as with music, is normally much quicker than simply randomly experimenting with the options and slowly accomodating the rules into your intuition. After all, it's due to this point that teachers exist.[/quote]

The problem is that always working within the rules, or even being led by them, doesn't always lead the most interesting creative results, IMHO. Like I said, it rather depends on whether you are trying to learn a bass part verbatim (i.e. as a session player etc), or are trying to come up with your own ideas. In the later case, speed is not really the objective of the exercise.

[quote]I think the use of the word 'rules' causes a lot of problems. Theory isn't about rules...it's about facts.
A major chord is made up of scale tones 1,3,5. You can't change or break that,in the same way that
1+1=2.[/quote]

Yes, that is certainly a fact, however as to whether certain chord progressions or particular combinations of notes sound good together is merely conjecture. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, look at the harmonic combinations using in eastern music, which sound unfamiliar and 'unmusical'(whatever that means) to the average western ear.

I'm not dismissing theory by any means, I'm just saying that not all of us need to have a huge knowledge of it to be musically accomplished. Horses for courses I guess...

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='JellyKnees' post='1243241' date='May 24 2011, 06:38 PM']The problem is that always working within the rules, or even being led by them, doesn't always lead the most interesting creative results, IMHO. Like I said, it rather depends on whether you are trying to learn a bass part verbatim (i.e. as a session player etc), or are trying to come up with your own ideas. In the later case, speed is not really the objective of the exercise.



Yes, that is certainly a fact, however as to whether certain chord progressions or particular combinations of notes sound good together is merely conjecture. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, look at the harmonic combinations using in eastern music, which sound unfamiliar and 'unmusical'(whatever that means) to the average western ear.

I'm not dismissing theory by any means, I'm just saying that not all of us need to have a huge knowledge of it to be musically accomplished. Horses for courses I guess...[/quote]

I'm certain I would of created better (to my ear) bass lines years ago when trying to be a rock star if I had known then what I do now which isn't much but the pub was always calling instead and I played by ear and all that How many cool rock stars later turned out to be total geeks but kept it quiet so the young fans would only see the rock star image?

[Doddy]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1243207' date='May 24 2011, 06:05 PM']But I think you've confused 'music theory' with 'memory'! You don't need any formal background to remember what works and what doesn't.[/quote]
No I haven't confused theory with memory,and no you don't need formal training,I never said you did.In fact the vast majority of stuff that
I learned was by playing something on a gig then wanting to know either why it worked(or didn't) so that I could do it again (or not).

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1243207' date='May 24 2011, 06:05 PM']Your comment about 'letting it hinder you' seems a bit strange. I don't see why you're so insistent that people don't and shouldn't conceptualise something in different ways, when education research and neuroscience have shown patently that that's not the case.[/quote]
You mentioned that it may hinder some people to learn theory and I said only if you let it. Why is that strange? If someone is
used to using their ear and then learns theory they don't shut off their ears,they will use their new found information to
enhance what they were already doing. Learning theory alone won't hinder you,in the same way that someone who knows
a lot of theory won't become hindered by learning ear training.

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1243210' date='May 24 2011, 06:08 PM']Fact: a 'fact' is not a 'theory'. They are two completely different things.

I think this is why you're misunderstanding the issue (sorry if that sounds condescending!)[/quote]

Once again I'm not misunderstanding anything. My point is that a lot of people refer to theory as 'rules',when it really isn't.
The theory behind the music is pretty static with regards to what notes make up what chords and scales or whatever,if you
change a note,you get something else. You can break the 'rules' as much as you want,but you can't break the fact that a C chord
is made up of the notes C,E,G.

[Doddy]

[quote name='JellyKnees' post='1243241' date='May 24 2011, 06:38 PM']Yes, that is certainly a fact, however as to whether certain chord progressions or particular combinations of notes sound good together is merely conjecture. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, look at the harmonic combinations using in eastern music, which sound unfamiliar and 'unmusical'(whatever that means) to the average western ear.[/quote]

Which is why a few posts back I said that when you writing your own music you can do whatever you want.

[LawrenceH]

Doddy,
I'm not trying to knock you here because you have a lot to say about music that's really useful and I respect it. But because of that, I find it frustrating that when taking a very strong stance on the issue of theory, your arguments are semantically confused which is misleading given your general authority on the topic.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243249' date='May 24 2011, 06:43 PM']No I haven't confused theory with memory,and no you don't need formal training,I never said you did.In fact the vast majority of stuff that
I learned was by playing something on a gig then wanting to know either why it worked(or didn't) so that I could do it again (or not).[/quote]
I'm sure you're not confused yourself but you said 'take away the guess work and play the right note straight away', in context implying that without theory people are guessing, which isn't the case and so is a disingenuous point.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243249' date='May 24 2011, 06:43 PM']You mentioned that it may hinder some people to learn theory and I said only if you let it. Why is that strange? If someone is
used to using their ear and then learns theory they don't shut off their ears,they will use their new found information to
enhance what they were already doing. Learning theory alone won't hinder you,in the same way that someone who knows
a lot of theory won't become hindered by learning ear training.[/quote]

It's strange because it ignores the fact that it's inefficient and overwhelming for people whose academic analytical skills are weak but who can reach exactly the same end result through an alternative process more suited to their strengths. That's why teachers who are good at teaching a diverse pupil base vary their methods depending on the student. It's not all down to willingness on the part of the student, that's like saying all dyslexics are lazy.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243249' date='May 24 2011, 06:43 PM']Once again I'm not misunderstanding anything. My point is that a lot of people refer to theory as 'rules',when it really isn't.
The theory behind the music is pretty static with regards to what notes make up what chords and scales or whatever,if you
change a note,you get something else. You can break the 'rules' as much as you want,but you can't break the fact that a C chord
is made up of the notes C,E,G.[/quote]

To say that 'fact' is 'theory' as you did above IS a misunderstanding. It just is. The two terms refer to different things. Facts are observable or defined phenomena. Theories are, broadly, causal explanations of observed phenomena. If you argue a poitn about theory and then use a fact as the basis of your argument, your argument has no validity regardlses of whether your conclusion is actually right or not. Incidentally, a chord name is a defined rather than observed phenomenon, as it's a name we ascribe to a particular sub-group of notes. You don't have to know the name to understand the phenomenon, although I'd agree entirely it is very useful - and all of it is essential if you're doing sideman work as you describe, but that's not the be-all and end-all for a lot of people.

Sorry if this is an egg-sucking-type post, you may well be perfectly clear on all these things but it's not what your posts per se have been saying and I think most of the disagreement is really due to semantics/miscommunication.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1243285' date='May 24 2011, 07:05 PM']Doddy,
I'm not trying to knock you here because you have a lot to say about music that's really useful and I respect it. But because of that, I find it frustrating that when taking a very strong stance on the issue of theory, your arguments are semantically confused which is misleading given your general authority on the topic.


I'm sure you're not confused yourself but you said 'take away the guess work and play the right note straight away', in context implying that without theory people are guessing, which isn't the case and so is a disingenuous point.



It's strange because it ignores the fact that it's inefficient and overwhelming for people whose academic analytical skills are weak but who can reach exactly the same end result through an alternative process more suited to their strengths. That's why teachers who are good at teaching a diverse pupil base vary their methods depending on the student. It's not all down to willingness on the part of the student, that's like saying all dyslexics are lazy.



To say that 'fact' is 'theory' as you did above IS a misunderstanding. It just is. The two terms refer to different things. Facts are observable or defined phenomena. Theories are, broadly, causal explanations of observed phenomena. If you argue a poitn about theory and then use a fact as the basis of your argument, your argument has no validity regardlses of whether your conclusion is actually right or not. Incidentally, a chord name is a defined rather than observed phenomenon, as it's a name we ascribe to a particular sub-group of notes. You don't have to know the name to understand the phenomenon, although I'd agree entirely it is very useful - and all of it is essential if you're doing sideman work as you describe, but that's not the be-all and end-all for a lot of people.

Sorry if this is an egg-sucking-type post, you may well be perfectly clear on all these things but it's not what your posts per se have been saying and I think most of the disagreement is really due to semantics/miscommunication.[/quote]

But all of these points as ever have only been after the usual pulling and pushing of every point made by anyone suggesting theory and reading to be worthwhile, I know only small ammounts of theory compared to a lot of people in this thread yet I know what Doddy meant in the first place in every post? What the majority of people on this site will be concidering worthwhile would be major and minor scales etc and how they relate to each other, What 99% of us would take as a 'wrong' note is being one not in key for that song. You can call it what you like but in general if most of us here played a note not included within the correct key at the dog and duck the audience will pull funny faces at us. To me thats a 'duff' note or call it 'wrong' whatever you like most people reading this thread know what Doddy is saying and given the majority of us are in the know a bit but wish I knew more camp I guess a lot of the other stuff will of gone over everyones head?

For instance by "guess work" I presume means as most players do when working out a tune we play about with ideas until something fits? if you know what key you are playing about in then you know where you can and cant go (please dont over complicate this saying yes but if its this that and the other you know what I mean) After a while you know where to go to some extent but then if you create half a minor riff not knowing you have and start adding to it as a basis for a verse etc all of a sudden the way you were playing something earlier in major doesnt sound so good anymore.

Edited May 24, 2011 by stingrayPete1977

[LawrenceH]

Pete, sure and I agree that talking about whether you can play a B over a C7 is irrelevant - you can, and what's music theory allows for that no problem. Doddy's not talking about those occasions and is well aware of them. That's why I haven't bothered entering into that argument, he was making a perfectly valid point about defining boundaries which are useful so you know when you're crossing them (is C E G actually a C chord, or is it Em#5 2nd inversion?! Who cares?)
But, the example definition given of what theory actually is, is wrong. It may seem like an obscure philosophical point but there are several levels of discussion going on simultaneously here. What I'm trying to say is that learning as a process is a topic of study in itself, and if you're trying to understand whether something like music theory is a universally useful learning tool, then you'd be best both looking at the history of music theory and how it relates to practice, and how learning itself works.
The reason I think it's important in the real world is that a didactic approach to teaching is successful only for the individuals that the given approach suits - you risk putting off as many people as you help, and what's more you actually slow the progress of some of them because you'll overload them with information in a format that they can't unlock. That's a real shame.

[edited for typos!]

Edited May 24, 2011 by LawrenceH

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1243336' date='May 24 2011, 07:42 PM']if most of us here played a note not included within the correct key at the dog and duck the audience will pull funny faces at us. To me thats a 'duff' note or call it 'wrong'[/quote]

Oh yeah, I agree with this as it's exactly the same point as I made earlier And most of those punters probably don't have any musical theory. That's why it's important to separate off 'ear training', which teaches us the language of music directly, from 'theory', which [b]abstracts[/b] the language to formally define relationships and, perhaps, lets us ask 'why'?

[xilddx]

Theory is undoubtedly very, very useful. To learn the aspects of theory you require, ideally you need to read standard notation. Theory can only do so much though, and there are many different applications for it, depending on your musical role.

Theory is not a panacea, nor is technical facility, nor is compositional study. But we are often told they are, and that we should learn it all. To truly make use of these tools, you need to know your musical role and decide the tools' subsets you need for your role, and understand how they can help you achieve your musical goals.

The trouble with a lot of teaching methods, I think, is that they are taught to a syllabus that takes little account of the students' needs, or indeed even attempt to teach the student how to understand and decide what they might need and what they feel they want to achieve as a musician. All musicians are different and need different things from the academic side of music. I feel sure it's not as difficult to learn as those of us without the language are often made to feel it is.

[Bilbo]

I and others have said many times, reading and understanding theory are not hard and can be enormously empowering. Noone is being elitist about it. Anyone near me wants a hand with either aspect of their craft, get in touch and I'll get you going in the right direction.

[peteb]

This old chestnut again – obviously a hot topic on this forum!

As far as I am concerned, you need to learn to play and the best way to do that is to listen to your favourite players (not just one, the more the better) and learn everything that they do backwards. Then all you need to do is to merge it all together and hopefully find your own style somewhere in the there!

This is not just my opinion, but is one shared by many top players including the likes of Steve Lukather, Paul Gilbert & Bryan Beller (all of whom happen to be sight reading ‘taught’ musicians)

To be able to do this to any standard at all you need to be able to understand the mechanics of how music is put together, which is another way of saying that you need to have some working knowledge of music theory (whether you know what the correct terms for musical concepts or not) - how you apply that theory is of course up to you

Whether you need to be able to read or not is another thing altogether. In over 30 years of playing in gigging bands, including playing with guys who have toured the world in pro bands, I have never seen anyone produce a written score! However, if you want to be able to do the type of work that people like Doddy do, then reading is essential……

Edited May 24, 2011 by peteb