IS IT IMPORTANT

[Wil]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280265' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:18 PM']I respectfully totally disagree. I think you’re way off the mark with this one. How can you have practical knowledge of something you have no experience or understanding of? You could end up living a very small and narrow minded life if you go around believing that you understand everything despite having no experience of it – no offence meant (and I’m in no way saying you “live a very small and narrow minded life, because from your other posts on the forum I know that’s just not true ), I’m just trying to make a point.[/quote]

In the same regard, I could say that those who have learned theory have no understanding of how to play without it. Except that would be a very small minded view and an ultimately patronising one.

[Bilbo]

Isn't being reasonable so bl**dy [i]reasonable[/i]?

[Dubs]

[quote name='Wil' post='280288' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:35 PM']In the same regard, I could say that those who have learned theory have no understanding of how to play without it. Except that would be a very small minded view and an ultimately patronising one.[/quote]

Although the likelihood of it is that the majority of players started to learn bass without knowing any theory…

[Adrenochrome]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280295' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:43 PM']Although the likelihood of it is that the majority of players started to learn bass without knowing any theory…[/quote]

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that one. I doubt that I'm the only one who played other instruments and learned [basic] music theory at school but didn't pick up a bass until much later.
I've never had a lesson on guitar or bass so I guess I've a foot in both camps.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280265' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:18 PM']I respectfully totally disagree. I think you’re way off the mark with this one. How can you have practical knowledge of something you have no experience or understanding of? You could end up living a very small and narrow minded life if you go around believing that you understand everything despite having no experience of it – no offence meant (and I’m in no way saying you “live a very small and narrow minded life, because from your other posts on the forum I know that’s just not true ), I’m just trying to make a point.[/quote]

I think you misunderstood my post. I never said that I would have a practical knowledge of complicated jazz music - I said that I could watch it, listen to it, compare it to what I already know on the bass, and quite easily realise that it would take a lot of technical musical theoretical knowledgetical knowledge to accomplish what I am seeing and hearing. I don't have to have that knowledge to know that.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280266' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:18 PM']Not really. If you try read a book in a language you don't understand but you can't make sense of it, you will not know what you are missing. If you can hear those 'weird' changes, they are subjectively more beautiful than the simple little diatonic major harmonies in most poular music. If you can't, you wouldn't know.[/quote]

Like I have said before, music is not comparable to language in that way. Music could be reffered to as a language if you like, but everyone all over the world can understand it. It's like saying you have to have an expansive knowledge of music theory to enjoy listening to jazz music, and to be able to think about what goes into that music you have to know all of the technical terms that the musicians use. I'm sure there are loads of jazz proficianados (critics, DJs, producers etc) who know no music theory.

I can hear weird changes without knowing what they're called and/or how to do it.

I am using jazz as an example here because it generally requires a greater knowledge of (how notes works together and where and when to find them) music theory than say... Pop-Rock.

[lowhand_mike]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280265' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:18 PM']I respectfully totally disagree. I think you’re way off the mark with this one. How can you have practical knowledge of something you have no experience or understanding of? You could end up living a very small and narrow minded life if you go around believing that you understand everything despite having no experience of it – no offence meant (and I’m in no way saying you “live a very small and narrow minded life, because from your other posts on the forum I know that’s just not true ), I’m just trying to make a point.[/quote]
erm not strictly true, you won't get a knife and stab yourself with it to see if it hurts would you

way back when i had trumpet lessons, can't remember how long for and certainly can't remember a single bit of theory from it. i use to play keyboard again a long time ago and similar memory.
i started playing bass by getting a couple of simple books, rapidly got bored and then started learning song from cd's. that got me by for many years.
i learnt the most when i joined a band(10 or so years down the line), still with no training apart from the real basic quarter note etc stuff from those early books. i get by, i play in a band, i have fun. and until recently had absolutely no interest in theory. i like to try and learn the songs as they were written and do it by ear. i can hear if it sounds right or wrong and if it sounds wrong you can usually tel if it is way out or sharp or flat.
i then had a look at some sites and recognised a hell of a lot of scale shapes from the stuff that i play, major minor mixolydian and some others that i cant remember the names of cos they are overly awkward so i half know them, i roughly know the position of the notes on the fret board. when i get the time i will learn more but for now it wouldn't make a hell of alot of difference. and my kids deserve the time more.
timing and feel i learnt from playing in a band and you can't get that from a book or a metronome.

at the end of the day enjoy what you do however you do it, if someone does it differently to you then fine. if what they do helps then fine. if it doesn't then fine.

if everyone was the same it would be a very boring place.

[Bilbo]

I understand everyone's 'live and let live' attitude. Its all very pro-social and positive and is fundamentally where I stand also. Unlike a lot of people, however, I make sense of the world by talking and arguing and debating and pondering and re-visiting issues and arguing some more. It helps me keep enthusiastic and interested. Agreeing to disagree before you have disagreed with me gives me nothing to deliberate on! You can disagree without being disagreeable!

So, kindly rant on and feel good about it!!

[cheddatom]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280362' date='Sep 9 2008, 02:01 PM']I understand everyone's 'live and let live' attitude. Its all very pro-social and positive and is fundamentally where I stand also. Unlike a lot of people, however, I make sense of the world by talking and arguing and debating and pondering and re-visiting issues and arguing some more. It helps me keep enthusiastic and interested. Agreeing to disagree before you have disagreed with me gives me nothing to deliberate on! You can disagree without being disagreeable!

So, kindly rant on and feel good about it!![/quote]

I totally agree there Bilbo - why not respond to my response to your response to my post?



Regarding theory - I think it can be important to learn, or it can be not important to learn, depending on what you want to do as a musician. It can never be important to not learn.

[Bilbo]

OK - your point is completely valid - you don't need to understand 'grammar' to speak a language (a French friend of mine doesn't get this 'masculine'/'feminine', le/la stuff any more than I do) and there are many people who don't understand theory who can 'hear' the more complex and 'advanced' elements of some jazz. I have no argument with that but I think that any player who wants 'be the best that they can be', the study of theory opens doors that may be otherwise difficult to access.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280391' date='Sep 9 2008, 02:34 PM']OK - your point is completely valid - you don't need to understand 'grammar' to speak a language (a French friend of mine doesn't get this 'masculine'/'feminine', le/la stuff any more than I do) and there are many people who don't understand theory who can 'hear' the more complex and 'advanced' elements of some jazz. I have no argument with that but I think that any player who wants 'be the best that they can be', the study of theory opens doors that may be otherwise difficult to access.[/quote]

I would agree apart from the "be the best they can be" - I think it should be "be the best that they can within the context of modern standardised music". There may be musicians who feel the need to abandon convention, and I would liken them to writers who understand spoken English, but enjoy deviating from the "standardised" written form, abandoning grammar, making up words or even whole dialects etc. It's not necessary to have a doctorate in English to be able to make up a new form of it, and I fail to see how it would help. I think this only makes sense in the context of a composer rather than a musician - like I said it depends what you want to do. If I want to be an original and unconventional composer, I would try to avoid listening to other people's music, and avoid reading music theory. If I wanted to go and play in a jazz band, I would learn music theory. Obviously there's a world of possibilities in between.

I don't think we disagree, I think i'm just being pedantic.

[mcgraham]

Ah yes, yet another debate on theory vs noodling. Dejavu anyone?

I'm not a teacher nor a psychologist so please bear with me if you will. Firstly, theory is nothing more than information. It objectively provides us with a (more or less) scientific understanding of why certain things sound the way they do, e.g. the harmonics and interference produced by a given interval/set of intervals. That is [i]objective[/i]. It exists whether you like it/know it or not. In and of itself it does not say whether something sounds pleasing/good/right or not, any such comments are usually a colouring of the information by those [i]teaching[/i] the theory (please note I'm not saying all notes are equal, that's something else).

It seems to me that there are two major parts to this, and that some of us seem to be advocating one over the other. (1) addressing the information (for want of a better word), followed by (2) internalising the information. Without the information readily/easily available, and to hand, it is mostly hit and miss as (without any theory dictating or predisposing you to make a certain note choice) all notes [i]are[/i] essentially equal, in a probability sense. Why would you pick one over another without good reason?However, without internalisation of said information, you do not progress beyond the knowledge stage, and you won't go the step further to learning why certain sounds/intervals etc [i]evoke[/i] the reactions/emotions that they do (linking it back to music being an art form). This is vital.

There are some who are nothing more than technicians, as they have not learned how to make the theory work towards progressing their art form. On the other hand, there are songwriters who know very little, but have stumbled upon a few ideas and learned exactly how to coax the reactions they desire out of their audience/public using these ideas. Those who have even an ounce of both abilities, to take in [i]and[/i] internalise the information available to them, are unlikely to struggle as musicians.

IMO.

Mark

Edited September 9, 2008 by mcgraham

[cheddatom]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='280444' date='Sep 9 2008, 03:53 PM']In and of itself it does not say whether something sounds pleasing/good/right or not, any such comments are usually a colouring of the information by those [i]teaching[/i] the theory (please note I'm not saying all notes are equal, that's something else).[/quote]

I think this is where the debate falls down a bit. Theory means different things to different people.

IMHO The theory you're talking about is the science of sound.

Music theory is different, and DOES say whether something sounds pleasing/good/right or not.

That is why our opinions differ.

[Dubs]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='280311' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:53 PM']I think you misunderstood my post. I never said that I would have a practical knowledge of complicated jazz music - I said that I could watch it, listen to it, compare it to what I already know on the bass, and quite easily realise that it would take a lot of technical musical theoretical knowledgetical knowledge to accomplish what I am seeing and hearing. I don't have to have that knowledge to know that.[/quote]
Ok I can see what your saying, but I can’t agree with you that you will “quite clearly know what you’re missing”, because you won’t. If you just look at your example about the rollercoaster in that you think what you will be missing will be the extreme speed or G force, what experience have you got to qualify that statement? How do you know that that’s what you will be missing and not something else, or how do you even know that you won’t like it?
It’s like the argument for keeping battery chickens in tiny cages; they don’t know any different so it’s not cruel. When it comes to music theory you don’t know anything different than what you already know or you’ve already experienced, so you quite clearly don’t know what you’re missing.

[quote name='Adrenochrome' post='280303' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:47 PM']Hmmm, I'm not sure about that one. I doubt that I'm the only one who played other instruments and learned [basic] music theory at school but didn't pick up a bass until much later.
I've never had a lesson on guitar or bass so I guess I've a foot in both camps.[/quote]
I’m probably exactly the same as you then. I learnt piano for about 8 years before picking up a bass, but I was very slack with music theory because I hated it.

[quote name='lowhand_mike' post='280325' date='Sep 9 2008, 01:09 PM']erm not strictly true, you won't get a knife and stab yourself with it to see if it hurts would you [/quote]
Again, I can see what you’re saying but I think you’re taking it slightly out of context Mike.



I think I might have dug myself a bit of a hole in this thread and it will look like I’ve planted my flag solidly on the “everyone should take the time to learn some bloody music theory” side, but that’s just not where I stand at all. I agree with some of the points that the people who I’ve been responding to in this thread have made. Music theory isn’t the most essential aspect of being a good musician, and there are a hell of a lot of things that no one will be able to learn in a book such as how to lock into the groove and play with other musicians in a band. What I don’t agree with at all is comments to the effect of “it’s cool to be stupid”, or “it’s just not rock and roll man”, or as Bilbo said, the people who are trying to justify their own ignorance of music theory by advocating it and saying “I’ve done fine without it” etc…you can’t possibly understand the benefits of it if you have no experience of it.
Personally I grew up with having theory pretty much forced on me via piano lessons, and then at GCSE music, and then at A Level music, and then at degree level. I don’t enjoy studying it (and in all honesty I’ve stopped studying it in my own time altogether), but I can fully appreciate the advantages it gives me as a musician. I can’t remember half the stuff I’ve learnt, but the stuff that has stuck over the years is invaluable to me as a musician. I started playing bass with no intention of taking it seriously or even bothering to apply any relevant theory to it, so I can also appreciate the benefits of finding your own way around the instrument, but no one in their right mind can advocate ignorance of information that will help them to become a fundamentally better musician.
I’m not bowing out of this thread (because I think these kind of debates are really interesting and great fun), but I’m taking a step back from it because I feel that I’m just starting to repeat myself.

[Bilbo]

And a very considered and worthy opinion it is!

I think you have hit on an important point, Mark. A musical mind is required to make creative use of the information made available through study. Totally agree - an unmusical mind will make as much mess with the theoretical knowledge at their disposal as without. A musical mind without that knowledge can, alternately, make very good music without all that technical stuff clouding the issue.

But I guess my point is that a musical mind with that information should (in thoery ) be able to make something REALLY special happen! So, when asked do I need to know that theoretical stuff, my answer would always be an unqualified yes.

[mcgraham]

I'm referring primarily to music theory, I am in no way confused about which theory I am talking about. The theory I have read suggests routes you can take, and provides experiential guidance on what may work and what may not, but it is by no means an absolute set of rules, merely definitions, ala a dictionary, rather than a manual. When people teach theory in such absolutes, they are likely to be colouring it with their own experience, with varying levels of severeness. AND! On top of this, our interpretation of what sounds good and what doesn't is based in part on the science of sound. It is our 'personal colouration' of these sounds that persuade us to choose one sound over another.

[quote]But I guess my point is that a musical mind with that information should (in thoery ) be able to make something REALLY special happen! So, when asked do I need to know that theoretical stuff, my answer would always be an unqualified yes.[/quote]

Exactly

Mark

Edited September 9, 2008 by mcgraham

[Wil]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280454' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:13 PM']Ok I can see what your saying, but I can’t agree with you that you will “quite clearly know what you’re missing”, because you won’t. If you just look at your example about the rollercoaster in that you think what you will be missing will be the extreme speed or G force, what experience have you got to qualify that statement? How do you know that that’s what you will be missing and not something else, or how do you even know that you won’t like it?
It’s like the argument for keeping battery chickens in tiny cages; they don’t know any different so it’s not cruel. When it comes to music theory you don’t know anything different than what you already know or you’ve already experienced, so you quite clearly don’t know what you’re missing.


I’m probably exactly the same as you then. I learnt piano for about 8 years before picking up a bass, but I was very slack with music theory because I hated it.


Again, I can see what you’re saying but I think you’re taking it slightly out of context Mike.



I think I might have dug myself a bit of a hole in this thread and it will look like I’ve planted my flag solidly on the “everyone should take the time to learn some bloody music theory” side, but that’s just not where I stand at all. I agree with some of the points that the people who I’ve been responding to in this thread have made. Music theory isn’t the most essential aspect of being a good musician, and there are a hell of a lot of things that no one will be able to learn in a book such as how to lock into the groove and play with other musicians in a band. [b]*a) What I don’t agree with at all is comments to the effect of “it’s cool to be stupid”, or “it’s just not rock and roll man”, or as Bilbo said, the people who are trying to justify their own ignorance of music theory by advocating it and saying “I’ve done fine without it” etc…you can’t possibly understand the benefits of it if you have no experience of it.[/b]
Personally I grew up with having theory pretty much forced on me via piano lessons, and then at GCSE music, and then at A Level music, and then at degree level. I don’t enjoy studying it (and in all honesty I’ve stopped studying it in my own time altogether), but I can fully appreciate the advantages it gives me as a musician. I can’t remember half the stuff I’ve learnt, but the stuff that has stuck over the years is invaluable to me as a musician. I started playing bass with no intention of taking it seriously or even bothering to apply any relevant theory to it, so I can also appreciate the benefits of finding your own way around the instrument, but [b]*b)no one in their right mind can advocate ignorance of information that will help them to become a fundamentally better musician.[/b]
I’m not bowing out of this thread (because I think these kind of debates are really interesting and great fun), but I’m taking a step back from it because I feel that I’m just starting to repeat myself.[/quote]

Lordy lordy.

*a) I do have experience with theory, not in great depth, but enough to know its of no practical use to me. We are not all the same. I derive more pleasure playing a single note with feeling than noodling over changes, therefore it really is overkill. I could spend my time better doing things relevant to me and what I want to do, instead of learning theory which has no bearing on the music I love to make.

*b)not everyone wants to be a better musician! I'm quite happy with my level of ability. I do not need any more information to groove along. As a bassist, I can quite happily say there is nothing which I cannot play which I would particularly want to play in the first place. Again it boils down to different strokes for different folks.

I don't deny learning theory will make you a more rounded musician. My point is, not everyone cares about improvement after a point. I play as a hobby, the point it becomes a chore I pick up something else. I have plenty of other things I enjoy doing and these occupy the time I could spend learning theory, if I wished. I'd just rather not.

[wateroftyne]

No-one seems to have mentioned what counts as 'success' (or whatever) in the first place.

I have a busy, fulfilling musical life. I never get bored, and every time I play, I get something new out of it. I don't think I'm a bad player, or musically narrow-minded. Granted, I have no desire (or need) to play, understand or enjoy jazz.

Given that time isn't something I have a lot of at the moment, what would be [i]my[/i] motivation for learning theory?

[cheddatom]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280454' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:13 PM']Ok I can see what your saying, but I can’t agree with you that you will “quite clearly know what you’re missing”, because you won’t. If you just look at your example about the rollercoaster in that you think what you will be missing will be the extreme speed or G force, what experience have you got to qualify that statement? How do you know that that’s what you will be missing and not something else, or how do you even know that you won’t like it?
It’s like the argument for keeping battery chickens in tiny cages; they don’t know any different so it’s not cruel. When it comes to music theory you don’t know anything different than what you already know or you’ve already experienced, so you quite clearly don’t know what you’re missing.[/quote]

I am aware of the laws of physics. The rollercoaster analogy is not a good one.

The jazz performance is a good one though. If I watch a 3 piece, a guitarist is playing some chords like i've never heard before, and he keeps changing chords at seemingly random points in time, but the bassist is constantly playing notes that sound nice with the guitar, and he always keeps rythm, with him even though it sounds like the rythm is random. Watching that, I can tell that these people know their way around the fretboard to such an extent that they can create a chaotic sounding peice of music, and yet make it sound "musical" or "nice", and stay together time-wise. I would put that down to music theory whether I know any or not. They would have to have a theory of some sort in order to keep this "random" rythm and for them both to be able to play in the same time (unless they're psychic). If I am a musician in this situation, I would be able to watch them and compare their skills with my own. If I think "I could never keep up with those random timings, I could never come up with that many notes to fit with those chords" etc, then I quite clearly know what i'm missing - that knowledge.

Doesn't that make sense?

[quote name='mcgraham' post='280457' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:15 PM']I'm referring primarily to music theory, I am in no way confused about which theory I am talking about. The theory I have read suggests routes you can take, and provides experiential guidance on what may work and what may not, but it is by no means an absolute set of rules, merely definitions, ala a dictionary, rather than a manual. When people teach theory in such absolutes, they are likely to be colouring it with their own experience, with varying levels of severeness. AND! On top of this, our interpretation of what sounds good and what doesn't is based in part on the science of sound. It is our 'personal colouration' of these sounds that persuade us to choose one sound over another.
Mark[/quote]

I'm not saying you're confused about what theory you're talking about. All I was saying is that "the harmonics and interference produced by a given interval/set of intervals" can be defined using the laws of physics etc, where as "this is C major, if the song is in the key of C major, playing notes from C major will sound good" would be an example of music theory at work. Am I wrong? When I was at school I learned a lot of music theory from teachers and books etc. Most of what I learned was about key signiatures, scales, timing/rhythm, transposition etc. When put into practice, we would have examples like the one above "OK tom, i'm going to play in C major, you keep up" and if I played a note outside of the C major scale I was wrong.

Quite obviously what you do with your theory knowledge is your own business, i'm not saying that people should or do stick to music theory as though it's a rule book. I think though, in and of it's self, the majority of music theory text implies musical opinion such as "this is a good idea" (another example would be all of the ways to end a peice, I can't remember the proper name, but they teach you around 10 different ways to finish a piece, and then get you to identify them by listening to them, and you have to name them etc. It implies to me that these are the ways that a peice of music SHOULD be finished).

I'm not sure if i'm making sense. My only point to you Mark was that I have studied the science of sound waves - how they interact and how we hear them and why, and I have studied music theory and they seem like wildly different topics to me.

[phil_the_bassist]

[quote name='Wil' post='280486' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:40 PM']Lordy lordy.

*a) I do have experience with theory, not in great depth, but enough to know its of no practical use to me. We are not all the same. I derive more pleasure playing a single note with feeling than noodling over changes, therefore it really is overkill. I could spend my time better doing things relevant to me and what I want to do, instead of learning theory which has no bearing on the music I love to make.

*b)not everyone wants to be a better musician! I'm quite happy with my level of ability. I do not need any more information to groove along. As a bassist, I can quite happily say there is nothing which I cannot play which I would particularly want to play in the first place. Again it boils down to different strokes for different folks.

I don't deny learning theory will make you a more rounded musician. My point is, not everyone cares about improvement after a point. I play as a hobby, the point it becomes a chore I pick up something else. I have plenty of other things I enjoy doing and these occupy the time I could spend learning theory, if I wished. I'd just rather not.[/quote]

Nicely said!

I enjoy my current forays into music theory/learnin to read the dots on lines, and for me the theory is part of my hobby and I enjoy it as such. I can groove all over funk, I can sit rocksteady when needs and I can thrash it out and work the beat like toffee when it's called for but I would like to know the science behind it and until I reach critical mass where (as mentioned above) it starts becoming a chore, not a hobby, I'll carry on reading up and absorbing as much as I can.

We all agree bass playin is good, how we each do it and to what extent we do it is completely up to personal opinion and I don't believe there are right or wrong ways...merely different ways.

[artisan]

do you know, this thread has been a damn good read & has got me thinking (1st time for everything ) more about my playing, especially after playing countless 12 bar tunes at my local jam session last night.
i decided that my musical arsenal (no not arsehole) was actually more limited than i realised it was. i.e. i was more or less playing multiple variations of essentially the same thing-does that make sense ?. o.k. it was all very fluid & fitted in well with the songs but i was struggling to come up with anything that sounded much different,which made me think about this 'ere thread.
so you buggers have got me thinking about learning a bit-just a bit mind-of music theory,my good friend & jazz bass playing hero has offered to -"gulp"- give me some jazz lessons
now look at what you've done.............
i'm hoping this will open up my mind to a lot more playing options & maybee revitalise my overall playing skills.

[lowhand_mike]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280454' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:13 PM']Again, I can see what you’re saying but I think you’re taking it slightly out of context Mike.[/quote]

er that was kind of the point but kind of valid in that it gives an example (albeit an extreme one) of a reason fo not doing something and the natural human assumption of things.

[quote name='artisan' post='280533' date='Sep 9 2008, 05:03 PM']do you know, this thread has been a damn good read & has got me thinking (1st time for everything ) more about my playing, especially after playing countless 12 bar tunes at my local jam session last night.
i decided that my musical arsenal (no not arsehole) was actually more limited than i realised it was. i.e. i was more or less playing multiple variations of essentially the same thing-does that make sense ?. o.k. it was all very fluid & fitted in well with the songs but i was struggling to come up with anything that sounded much different,which made me think about this 'ere thread.
so you buggers have got me thinking about learning a bit-just a bit mind-of music theory,my good friend & jazz bass playing hero has offered to -"gulp"- give me some jazz lessons
now look at what you've done.............
i'm hoping this will open up my mind to a lot more playing options & maybee revitalise my overall playing skills.[/quote]

good on ya.
see thats the thing, there is NO point in doing it if you feel you are not getting anything from it. if it helps then its done its job.

certainly some recent threads on here have got me looking and actively (though not very much) learning some theory but without a structure to learn it i'm finding it hard to take in.
as for playing multiple version s of the same thing alot of the scales are indeed similar in their structure so similarities can arise, its how you apply the scale that counts and thats where i'm seeing problems in my own playing.

[mcgraham]

Cheddatom, I appreciate you clarifying your point, however I feel you may have skipped over part of mine.
[quote]any such comments are usually a colouring of the information by those teaching the theory[/quote]

Whether this is first hand, second hand, from your teacher, or from Hanon via your teacher, theory is inevitably going to be coloured in some way by those teaching it, and the people they were taught by... a point I feel you've actually supported by your response.
[quote]When put into practice, we would have examples like the one above "OK tom, i'm going to play in C major, you keep up" and if I played a note outside of the C major scale I was wrong[/quote]

If your teacher told you it was [i]theoretically wrong[/i] to play anything outside of C major, they are (IMO) wrong. They are speaking in absolutes, which (as we have established in the course of this thread) aren't that helpful, at least in the pursuit of art. What they perhaps [i]should[/i] be saying is that it is unconventional to do so, in both a historical and experiential context (i.e. I do not dispute that there are rules associated with classical music and the like, but I put it to you that this is but a historical interpretation of music theory).

Therefore, when you learn something, try to read between the lines as it is likely to be highly subjective. Try apply it to more than one context. Otherwise you're not reeeally internalising it, and you will be merely regurgitating it next time you come to play, taking the information at face value and not developing it nor making it your own. Again, I feel this example only serves to illustrate my point. Perhaps that's my own personal filter on the world making itself known

Mark

Edited September 9, 2008 by mcgraham

[OutToPlayJazz]

I'd say that the theory side depends on how far you want to go with the instrument. I always make all my pupils read proper notation & they've all thanked me for it in the end, as it opens up so many more possibilities for you as a player. Not least in terms of work opportunities further down the line. By the way you explained your process of learning up to now, it seems you're doing fine as you are, but a little inside knowledge is always a good thing

[SteveK]

[quote]so you buggers have got me thinking about learning a bit-just a bit mind-of music theory,[/quote]
I'll wager that once you've learnt "just a bit", you'll want to go on and learn [i]a bit more[/i], and then [i]a bit more[/i].

I'll also wager that any [i]feel and groove[/i] you had prior to learning "just a bit" won't suddenly depart your body and soul.

Steve

[Bilbo]

[quote name='artisan' post='280533' date='Sep 9 2008, 05:03 PM']do you know, this thread has been a damn good read & has got me thinking (1st time for everything ) more about my playing, especially after playing countless 12 bar tunes at my local jam session last night.
i decided that my musical arsenal (no not arsehole) was actually more limited than i realised it was. i.e. i was more or less playing multiple variations of essentially the same thing-does that make sense ?. o.k. it was all very fluid & fitted in well with the songs but i was struggling to come up with anything that sounded much different,which made me think about this 'ere thread.
so you buggers have got me thinking about learning a bit-just a bit mind-of music theory,my good friend & jazz bass playing hero has offered to -"gulp"- give me some jazz lessons
now look at what you've done.............
i'm hoping this will open up my mind to a lot more playing options & maybee revitalise my overall playing skills.[/quote]

Then my work here is done....