Theory

[Dad3353]

I am a bit dense here...

One has to understand that scales, harmony, chord tones are not the stuff of drummers on Day One. Our remit is rather those ' little dotted squiggles, the timing of the notes and the bar lines'; these are our 'meat and potatoes', so it seems almost inconceivable that anyone could approach reading music without this information being brought to the fore. Those that go on to percussion (vibraphones, or even timpani etc...) take on the melodic part, as would those playing other instruments (guitar, bass, keys etc...), or maybe with simply an academic interest (it's a fascinating subject, after all...). That's why the wry smile. reading music without comprehending the importance of the rhythmic information..? Heresy; pure heresy..!
And us drummers are the daft ones, too..? Ha..! Edited November 11, 2018 by Dad3353

[paul_c2]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1480879664' post='3187791']
It's not complicated, honestly.

If you work in circles where reading is the the norm, I can completely understand why you might think any other approach is a terrible restriction.

But it's important to be aware that there are circles where it's not the norm, usually where exactly replicating an existing part isn't the primary goal.

That's not to mention folk and roots music, which has survived for years on a mouth-to-ear basis.
[/quote]

Surely its only "not complicated", if the basslines are not complicated? I freely admit I'm pro-standard notation, for two reasons basically:

1) The burden of remembering basslines/music in my head is lifted - I don't need to be so familiar with the line to have remembered it; but familiar enough to play it well, given the part (as standard notation). For me, the "gap" in standard between sight reading and playing is relatively small. Most musicians can play better than they can read, obviously, but for some the gap is larger than others. Since the typical stuff I play is a couple of steps easier than my ultimate ability, it means I can fairly quickly get "up to speed" and pass off a convincing rendition with minimal practice. More complex stuff, it starts becoming less about the reading and more about the practice/repetition.

2) Its a standard language of communication across (almost) all musicians, so ideas, music, etc can be easily shared amongst musicians who play different instruments.

Obviously, reading music is only one part of music theory, but in itself it would help learning about other aspects of music theory.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='paul_c2' timestamp='1480939412' post='3188161']
Surely its only "not complicated", if the basslines are not complicated? I freely admit I'm pro-standard notation, for two reasons basically:

1) The burden of remembering basslines/music in my head is lifted - I don't need to be so familiar with the line to have remembered it; but familiar enough to play it well, given the part (as standard notation). For me, the "gap" in standard between sight reading and playing is relatively small. Most musicians can play better than they can read, obviously, but for some the gap is larger than others. Since the typical stuff I play is a couple of steps easier than my ultimate ability, it means I can fairly quickly get "up to speed" and pass off a convincing rendition with minimal practice. More complex stuff, it starts becoming less about the reading and more about the practice/repetition.

2) Its a standard language of communication across (almost) all musicians, so ideas, music, etc can be easily shared amongst musicians who play different instruments.

Obviously, reading music is only one part of music theory, but in itself it would help learning about other aspects of music theory.
[/quote]

I don't just play 12-bar day-in, day-out, if that's what you mean.

I can respond to both of your points by saying that, in the musical circles I move in, music isn't shared as notation, nor is the theory behind it discussed to any great degree.

This approach won't work for everyone - I get that - but it works just grand for me.

[paul_c2]

No worries, and I agree that its not the universal solution. Obviously I can only speak for my own personal experiences and situations.

[bassjim]

Up to recently my theory was reasonably good and I could "pick out" notes on bass clef and slowly go from there. As Ive been playing some time now I can work most things out using youtube ect when learning new cover tunes or just want to know for the hell of it.

I decided that I was musically "illiterate" because I have to do things like this so I made the move to stop and learn from the basics. So despite being able to play something like Donna Lee ( Jaco) reasonably well, I went out and got with Stuart Claytons' Reading for beginners.

Within a short space of time I now always go straight to the notation when ever possible as its a lot faster to work anything out. You still have to practice a piece/ bassline to get it as perfect as you want it, but the whole process of what note comes next is now a breeze.

Probably cut my learning a new tune by 3/4 . But.......because I already had all my basic theory already in the bag the whole process is faster than starting to read and learn the basics.

So for me the answer to whats the point in learning theory?, and this is just one of the reasons = without this knowledge you are holding yourself back. The rewards for learning far out way not learning.

Yes its hard at first but if you really make the effort it gets so much easier as you go along. If sitting at home slapping away in the key of E min or whatever for days on end makes you happy then great. But to truly expand....

Edited December 5, 2016 by bassjim

[gapiro]

I think also , a lot of people know some theory but don't know they know it.
Eg if you're playing a song in F Major , you probably instinctively know that a Bb sounds right, as does a C

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='gapiro' timestamp='1480943365' post='3188212']
I think also , a lot of people know some theory but don't know they know it.
Eg if you're playing a song in F Major , you probably instinctively know that a Bb sounds right, as does a C
[/quote]

I think that's a given, otherwise the droves of players out there who lack an understanding of theory would sound pretty shabby after the count-in :-D

[timmo]

One has to understand that scales, harmony, chord tones are not the stuff of drummers on Day One. Our remit is rather those ' little dotted squiggles, the timing of the notes and the bar lines'; these are our 'meat and potatoes', so it seems almost inconceivable that anyone could approach reading music without this information being brought to the fore. Those that go on to percussion (vibraphones, or even timpani etc...) take on the melodic part, as would those playing other instruments (guitar, bass, keys etc...), or maybe with simply an academic interest (it's a fascinating subject, after all...). That's why the wry smile. reading music without comprehending the importance of the rhythmic information..? Heresy; pure heresy..!
And us drummers are the daft ones, too..? Ha..!

Thanks for that explanation

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dad3353

[Dad3353]

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dad3353

[Bilbo]

Actually, a lot of readers don't have a lot of theory under their belt as they arguably don't need it. E.g. I could read out Einstein's theory of relativity quite effectively without actually understanding it.

[stingrayPete1977]

I do chuckle at the "I can't read music and don't know any theory but none of the bands I've been in needed me too" type posts every time this topic comes up, surely it's a chicken and egg situation? It's because you can't read you aren't invited into those gigs and or you wouldn't seek them out, I quite fancy doing more upright gigs but my reading and playing isn't good enough for a big band or jazz ensemble so I've never tried getting into one.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1481021611' post='3188976']
It's because you can't read you aren't invited into those gigs
[/quote]

But how would they know you don't read without asking first...?

[stingrayPete1977]

Because you'd be mixing in those circles.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1481024310' post='3189008']
Because you'd be mixing in those circles.
[/quote]

I'm confused

[stingrayPete1977]

It's like any job, if you were a sight reading jazzer you'd be on those types of gig, you'd meet other musicians with other gigs who'd take your number and you'd get called to dep on other gigs, so on and so forth, unless you can read you are unlikely to seek out those gigs yourself to get started and even if you blagged your way into a band using your ears that would work (that's what I do now), if you made a good job of it then you might get asked for your number by other musicians, you'd then have to ask them what the deal was if they rang you in six months time, they might presume you read only to be faced with fly sh*t on the gig!


People that know me within the band and live music scene context generally know what skills I have or in this case don't have, they won't give my number to someone specifically looking for a reading player for a theatre show but will for normal pub/function/wedding stuff.

[cheddatom]

I'd love to be able to read music. I've had a few attempts at it but can't seem to grasp it. I just keep getting angry at the fact that there's 5 lines, 5 gaps, and a bunch of sharps and flats. Why not just have 6 lines and 6 gaps and forget the key signatures?! Wouldn't that be more logical?

Anyway, I will have another go when I get some time off

I've recently started a 6 piece funk band. Everyone else reads. We're doing some covers and some people bring their "dots". I'm just doing it all by ear as usual. We're all playing in the same key. There doesn't seem to be a problem communicating. I can't actually imagine where a problem would come up?

[Bilbo]

There's your problem. There are only four gaps.

That was easy.

[paul_c2]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1481032494' post='3189125']
I'd love to be able to read music. I've had a few attempts at it but can't seem to grasp it. I just keep getting angry at the fact that there's 5 lines, 5 gaps, and a bunch of sharps and flats. Why not just have 6 lines and 6 gaps and forget the key signatures?! Wouldn't that be more logical?

Anyway, I will have another go when I get some time off

I've recently started a 6 piece funk band. Everyone else reads. We're doing some covers and some people bring their "dots". I'm just doing it all by ear as usual. We're all playing in the same key. There doesn't seem to be a problem communicating. I can't actually imagine where a problem would come up?
[/quote]

The boring fact is that the staff represents the diatonic scale, hence why there is no direct relationship with vertical position and note.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1481062279' post='3189477']
There's your problem. There are only four gaps.

That was easy.
[/quote]

To think of it as 5 lines and 4 gaps is somewhat incomplete, because there's plenty of notes above and below the staff. For example, every bass guitar can play a low E, which is on the ledger line below the staff. And of course, the bass guitar is a transposing instrument, albeit 1 octave, in most written parts. However there's plenty of situations where you'd be expected to read a part at concert pitch, where most of the notated notes will be below the staff. And of course, anything beyond B below middle C will either be on ledger lines, or if the arranger is feeling particularly thoughful/clever, might have written it on tenor or treble clef.

[cheddatom]

When I get some time off I'll learn to read, I am determined!