IS IT IMPORTANT

[mcgraham]

My sentiments exactly...

... provided we don't get the same arguments from the same people in another thread on theory

Mark

[phil_the_bassist]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='280933' date='Sep 10 2008, 10:04 AM']My sentiments exactly...

... provided we don't get the same arguments from the same people in another thread on theory

Mark[/quote]


*isn't holding his breath*

[Bilbo]

It only matters that we get a different audience!

Edited September 10, 2008 by bilbo230763

[cheddatom]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='280566' date='Sep 9 2008, 05:38 PM']Cheddatom, I appreciate you clarifying your point, however I feel you may have skipped over part of mine.


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.


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[/quote]

I deffinitely agree with that, but when "theory is inevitably going to be coloured in some way by those teaching it" - and arguably that covers the entirety of music theory, you see why I refer to music theory as the "coloured science" and make a distinction between music theory and science, and why I think that music theory is in a way a set of rules. If the theory is always going to have this "colouration" then it is never going to be absolutely "theoretical" if you know what I mean?

Like I say, what you do with theory is your business, and after our last long discussion I changed my opinion on the matter in that I don't think that it could be a bad thing to learn theory in any situation - although I do think it would be a very bad thing if every single musician in the world had a grade 8 (or whatever the highest qualification is) in music theory.

[Bilbo]

The learning of theory is important. I have made my feelings known about this already. But there is another aspect of becoming a fully developed musician that is both easier and harder to come by and that is the development of a sophisticated Critcial Sense.

What I mean is that we all, as human beings, have to learn to evaluate the information we are given and to assess its validity, importance and helpfulness. If a music teacher tells us something, we have to not only learn it on the obvious level but we need to establish its relevance in the overall momentum of our development.

If a tutor tells is something like, 'if a piece is in the key of C, all featured notes have to be from the c-major scale', we need to be able to take that and use it but to revisit it periodically in order to establish whether it still rings true. In fact, it is a useful way of teaching the theory but, in practice, it is not an absolute (you can, in fact, use all 12 notes (and some others) when you are in the key of C major - it is a question of degrees of tension - telling that to a learner, however, would not necessarily, in the short term, be helpful).

This Critical Sense applies to all information, however, and that includes every post on this forum including mine. Read, listen, think, assess, evaluate and use or discard as you see fit. You can always pick stuff up again later. But it is important to recognise when what people say is fundamentally destructive - 'you don't need to learn theory' is one of those statements that can be potentially deeply destructive and can put someone back for years. There are others; 'don't bother with tapping or slapping', 'don't use metronomes', you can't study 'grooving' - are these statements 'true', 'helpful', 'constructive' or not? My opinion doesn't matter; we all need to figure this stuff out for ourselves.

Teachers can be brilliant but they can be awful. We need to learn to recognise the diffference.

[cheddatom]

I think that's more "life theory" than "music theory" and occurs to me as common sense, but every time I think that, I find a new idiot who just takes everything at face value or the like.

[mcgraham]

I get what you mean, and it is difficult to see past 'musical prejudice' inherent in people's playing. However, you can look to different [i]styles[/i] for an illustration of how certain musicians are biased in their choice of notes/theory application. You look to metal (of course various genres ) and you find heavy use of angular intervals, lots of chromaticism etc; you look to rock/pop, you'll find heavy use of standard chord resolutions, chords based on diads and triads (i.e. R-5, R-3-5) with the sparse use of non-diatonic notes etc; you look to classical music and you find a hefty set of rules that govern what you're allowed to end with, start with, and notes that are 'wrong' or 'illegal' in certain contexts (depending on the type and era, I'm not an expert so please don't pick too many holes in that one).

So, with regard to theory, if you pause for a second, and imagine that various musical styles incorporate different musical devices that are at least partly responsible for distinguishing their genre as [u][i]that[/i][/u], and that each of these devices from every genre is based on the same set of absolute principles, i.e. a major 2nd is a major 2nd, a Cm9#11 has 'these' notes, and (outside of enharmonic equivalence which we shall ignore) there's no two ways about it, after this you start to see the limitless and not limiting applications of theory.

In essence what I'm saying is that each genre of music (and each teacher within each genre) advocates a slightly different approach to theory, coloured in the shade of that genre. If you add as many colours together as you can, you get a less and less coloured (less restricted) view of theory, i.e. broadening your horizons and expanding your palette. Each time I've tried my hand at a new style in a different group, I've heard something new, I've figured out what was going on, why it worked, and it has reshaped my previous understanding of what works and what doesn't work in a given style or context, thus expanding my theoretical understanding of music.

Is that making sense?

Mark

[cheddatom]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='280971' date='Sep 10 2008, 11:10 AM']Is that making sense?

Mark[/quote]

Yeh, deffinitely, I agree with all of that.

I was just saying that music theory is not a science - although it could be described as a collection of absolute facts - so i'm probably wrong? Nevermind!

[mcgraham]

Science is supposedly derived from the word [i]sciencio[/i], meaning truth (I think?). So arguably music is more true than any science we [i]think[/i] we know about.

But I digress.

Mark

[cheddatom]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='280980' date='Sep 10 2008, 11:20 AM']Science is supposedly derived from the word [i]sciencio[/i], meaning truth (I think?). So arguably music is more true than any science we [i]think[/i] we know about.

But I digress.

Mark[/quote]

Indeed. I was either not reading your posts properly yesterday, or just not thinking straight. Of course music theory can be a science! I'd never thought of it like that before. Thanks for changing my perceptions.

That's two music-theory related revelations i've had on BC. I wish people would stop saying "same old boring topic" - there's always a chance to learn.



Personally, I can't remember any theory, although I did know a lot. When i'm writing music, I try to listen for the right sounds, that give me the right feelings at the right times. When i'm playing with a band though, I know it's all my "internalised theory" coming out, along with years of sitting in the living room messing around and deviating from what I was taught.

[artisan]

[quote name='lowhand_mike' post='280557' date='Sep 9 2008, 05:23 PM']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.[/quote]


i've not really worried about it much before but reading this 'ere thread got me thinking i'd like to try a new,or different approach to some of my playing.i can play pretty much any style but i'm more a jack of all trades & a master of none.well apart from playing old iron maiden songs pretty much how steve harris used too play them, which probably wasn't to good for my playing in the early years as more work went into my right hand rather than my fretting hand,but that helped me build up loads of strenght & stamina in my fingers which incidently my missus seems to rather like.
so i'm hoping this here jazz thoery thingy will give me a few new ideas.

Edited September 10, 2008 by artisan

[artisan]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280912' date='Sep 10 2008, 09:42 AM']Then my work here is done.... [/quote]


in theory my theory is that your theory of my having no theory is theoretically the theory behind the theory of my theoretically learning some theory.

[lowhand_mike]

[quote name='artisan' post='281171' date='Sep 10 2008, 03:34 PM']but that helped me build up loads of strenght & stamina in my fingers which incidently my missus seems to rather like. [/quote]

haha, i believe there is a t-shirt you can get to that effect as well.

[6stringbassist]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280216' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:11 AM']The proper study of theory would inevitably improve your ear. I particularly found this with the melodic minor scale and associated chord theory. You would be a pretty special musician if you could find your way around that sucker without proper study.

C D Eb F G A B C = melodic minor = C Min/maj7, D Min7sus9, Eb Maj7sharp5, F7sharp11, G7b6, Adim, Balt (b9, Min3shap9, b11, b5/sharp11, b13, b7).

Of course, you learn it, internalise it then 'just play' but the important part is to LEARN it not wait until the magic bass pixie delivers it fully formed.[/quote]

Melodic minor sounds great played over an altered /super locrian scale, a semitone up from the key you're playing in, eg play Ab melodic minor over a G altered.

Not rock and roll, but I like it !.

Edited September 14, 2008 by 6stringbassist

[thepurpleblob]

[quote name='6stringbassist' post='283727' date='Sep 14 2008, 04:03 PM']Melodic minor sounds great played over an altered /super locrian scale, a semitone up from the key you're playing in, eg play Ab melodic minor over a G altered.

Not rcok and roll, but I like it !.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about??

Back to Wikipedia........

[Bilbo]

The G alt is the seventh chord of the Ab melodic minor scale so it would sound good. Its the source of a zillion bits of good jazz.

[bennifer]

Ok, so in addition to my earlier post saying I want to learn where all the notes are - I can highly suggest that you get in a band with someone who is brilliant on piano. We've been learning cover songs, doing weird adaptations of songs by tenacious d, lil jon and the eastside boys, xzibit etc into female fronted rock ballads! She's been helping me find all the notes but writing down everything in notes for me to follow so now I automatically learn all the notes on the neck as I learn more and more songs. A very organic and fun way of learning.

[Bilbo]

I recommend learning piano yourself, if you can find the time. Not virtuoso stuff, just arrangers piano. Opens up a whole new world and makes you listen differently!

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='284118' date='Sep 15 2008, 11:28 AM']I recommend learning piano yourself, if you can find the time. Not virtuoso stuff, just arrangers piano. Opens up a whole new world and makes you listen differently![/quote]

I tend to write using keys rather than guitar or bass, partly because I don't really know what I'm doing on keys. So I find the notes in my head and try to find the chords I need and sometimes find I've got that wrong when I do pick up a bass, etc. But it means I have to do all the writing, there's no falling back on what my hands know. Of course one day when I've done this often enough I'm going to find I've learned to play keys and maybe I'll need a different instrument to write on, but hopefully I'll have learned enough about harmony by then to be able to write songs more easily.

One downside of this process is when you then have to go to your guitarist and say "Yeah it's E minor 9, then B augmented... Yeah. Augmented. Yeah. I just found it on a keyboard. No you can't just play B..."

[tauzero]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='284059' date='Sep 15 2008, 09:03 AM']The G alt is the seventh chord of the Ab melodic minor scale so it would sound good. Its the source of a zillion bits of good jazz.[/quote]
It's not in "Fever". Can't be that good.

[mcgraham]

This may be an example of my more qualitative way of looking at things when it comes to execution of some theory, but I've found that using the altered scale (say G altered over G) is very similar to sidestepping except for that one note (being the G). Also, depending on which portions/notes of the scale you use, it can take on aspects similar to synthetic scales (i.e. H-W/W-H or full whole tone scale). And, as you've rightly said, is strongly connected to the melodic minor. As such I've not focused on that scale to a great extent, as what I've found it to offer to be more or less provided by other scales. But, I may as well look at it again! See if I can dig out some more new ideas.

Mark

Edited September 17, 2008 by mcgraham

[Waldo]

There's no *need* for you to do anything. If you're happy with your playing then great. If you're contemplating learning theory, you've got nothing to lose, give it a go Chances are it will improve your playing (which is a highly subjective notion anyway).

Personally, I started playing bass already knowing a lot of music theory but I found it to be of little use, to the point of not consciously using any theory when I joined a band. I learned immeasurably more about music and how to make it by just being in a band, jamming and just getting creative with a group of likeminded musicians than I did by learning pure theory.

There seems to be an air of 'learning theory will make you a better person' around here, that's taking it a bit too far.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Waldo

[mcgraham]

You know, I don't think there is an emoticon that shows me hitting my head off a brick wall.

I guess this post will have to do.

Mark

[Dubs]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='285987' date='Sep 17 2008, 03:36 PM']You know, I don't think there is an emoticon that shows me hitting my head off a brick wall.

I guess this post will have to do.

Mark[/quote]
Print on A4 paper:

[Wil]

"Theory snobs looking down their noses at the opinions of those who don't tread the same path - not as subtle as they used to be"