Theory

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='6stringbassist' post='698828' date='Jan 2 2010, 04:49 PM']Does knowing too much English vocabulary inhibit your conversational skills or improve them ?

Music is a language like any other, learning the theory behind what you're playing [b]will only improve your playing[/b]. It will give you new ideas in what to play, and make your playing more fluid and confident.

I know loads of theory, I love learning about it and it really hasn't hampered me.

Comments like the one above are usually made by people who frankly can't be bothered to learn, it's just an excuse .[/quote]

Wooten always says this.

[Doddy]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='698831' date='Jan 2 2010, 04:50 PM']I'm not sure if Louis Johnson can read, but he was hired by loads of major artists because of his style.[/quote]

Exactly-he was hired because of his style. But, his style became unpopular and his work load
dwindled,which is why he now runs a martial arts school.
The problem with being a stylist is what happens when that style falls out of favour?

[6stringbassist]

[quote name='Doddy' post='698838' date='Jan 2 2010, 04:56 PM']Exactly-he was hired because of his style. But, his style became unpopular and his work load
dwindled,which is why he now runs a martial arts school.
The problem with being a stylist is what happens when that style falls out of favour?[/quote]


A great example is Nick Beggs, he was successful with Kajagoogoo. He then "learned how to play properly" (his words I think) and carried on his career as a session player. He was taught funnily enough by one of my teachers.

[jamieariss]

i see music as a lanuage

we can listen and speak it without having to think about what we are saying.
but to you can develop a lanuage by learning to read it , write it and the least important part the theory behind.

unfortunetly i started playin usisn theory so when i come to using my ear i was usless. so i had to jump back a fair way ha

theory could be ur icing on the cake but the u need the big fat centre b4 hand .... thats my opinion

[deathpanda]

I think it just depends on what you want to do, it's such a broad subject... If you want to do some session work, but reading music will be required, well then you'll regret not learning theory. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you've been asked to transpose something up a tone on the bass, surely playing 2 frets higher is all that's need? And the rest of it would be up to the guitarist and keyboardist to figure out the correct chords?

[6stringbassist]

[quote name='jamieariss' post='698853' date='Jan 2 2010, 05:13 PM']i see music as a lanuage

we can listen and speak it without having to think about what we are saying.
but to you can develop a lanuage by learning to read it , write it and the least important part the theory behind.

unfortunetly i started playin usisn theory so when i come to using my ear i was usless. so i had to jump back a fair way ha

theory could be ur icing on the cake but the u need the big fat centre b4 hand .... thats my opinion [/quote]

Learning to use your ear isn't what I'd say was going backwards.

You could already play, you knew that what you were doing was right. Learning to use your 'ear' is just a part of being able to play.

When I was first learning to play, I learned what the notes were on the fretboard, and basic harmony theory....knowing which notes made up the chords (which lets be honest isn't at all difficult, I was only 11 ).

I used to spend hours playing along to records on my parents stereo, songs by the Beatles, Genesis, The police etc. I had some song books, if I didn't have a book I would work out what the changes were. I knew whether the chords were major or minor from my basic knowledge, I used to write the bass lines out (in notation not tab, again something that's looked down upon, but again I was only 11 possibly 12 ).

People have the same thoughts on technique. They say 'Oh technique holds you back, it hampers creativity', which is nonsense. Having good technique and 'knowing' what you're playing go hand in hand to produce

[6stringbassist]

[quote name='deathpanda' post='698884' date='Jan 2 2010, 05:39 PM']I think it just depends on what you want to do, it's such a broad subject... If you want to do some session work, but reading music will be required, well then you'll regret not learning theory. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you've been asked to transpose something up a tone on the bass, surely playing 2 frets higher is all that's need? And the rest of it would be up to the guitarist and keyboardist to figure out the correct chords?[/quote]


But you're playing chords too, or parts of them ie root, 3rd, 5th etc. But yes you are right a tone is two frets .

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='697373' date='Dec 31 2009, 05:48 PM']I always think that, judging by the material I play, people expect me to be a jazz/theory monster, but I always maintain that anyone can learn songs by rote, but it's the groove and feel that count.

I know Jake has played the Dan's material with Bryan on drums (H Gang), and he's a theory master.

What do you think, Jake?[/quote]
Hi Pete, I have indeed played the Dan songbook with Bryan and some other very fine musicians including Les Chisnall, Johnny Heyes, Mike Walker, Johnny Musgrave, Andy Schofield and Suzanne Higgins and in that band on vocals was the phenomenally talented Neil Fairclough, but his first instrument is bass and he is a dynamite player (ask Bryan).
It's a funny question really Pete because it's all about the player and what he or she brings. Firstly I don't consider myself to be a theory master, I simply have learned enough about it to make rehearsals quick and easily conducted, and also to enable me to convey what I want as a teacher. The whole point about theory is twofold, firstly it is a very convenient system by which musicians that want to produce music very quickly and to a very high standard can do so with a universally understood language. Secondly it is a means by which you can gather, store, and facilitate information hopefully with a view to improving and widening your abilities.
What is unusual about music in general is that people who are totally ignorant of theory can be literally brilliant and the reason for that is as you say, if your ears are good then you can learn by rote and be very authentic, original, musical etc etc (the aural tradition of learning should NOT be underestimated)
Then we turn to Steely Dan.
I had a discussion with Mike Walker about playing in H Gang, we both agreed that Steely Dan is a great band to cover and we had great fun doing it. I have to say that it was an awesome sounding band (sincerely not wanting to be competitive) And what me and Mike thought was behind that was the spirit of the membership. Every one of the people named above are very broad musicians and a few of them are world class. Each player would be comfortable in virtually any musical setting up to and including contemporary Jazz. In my mind if you accept that Becker and Fagen had two main ingredients in their output, the first being a love of Jazz and the second, the use of the best musicians available then I think you would have to agree that it follows that a cover version using the same elements would have a pretty good shot at getting the spirit right.

So thats the long answer. The short answer is: I think in the right player, knowing your sh*t playing that stuff would help. But it's worth remembering that Chuck Rainey's main USP is feel and groove. But then they did use some total masters in their field, eg Wayne Shorter.

Another point to consider is how it would have happened in the first place. There would have been Rhythm charts galore in the studio when those sessions took place and but for the existence of recorded music you wouldn't have been able to learn it in the first place.

Ok so it wasn't a short answer, which I think illustrates that this question is multi faceted and many elements of the various arguments that will be presented have validity.

I just try to sit atop it all being magnanimous and smug

Edited January 2, 2010 by jakesbass

[Kev]

[quote name='6stringbassist' post='698828' date='Jan 2 2010, 04:49 PM']Does knowing too much English vocabulary inhibit your conversational skills or improve them ?[/quote]

Edited January 2, 2010 by Kev

[urb]

[quote name='6stringbassist' post='698887' date='Jan 2 2010, 05:41 PM']People have the same thoughts on technique. They say 'Oh technique holds you back, it hampers creativity', which is nonsense. Having good technique and 'knowing' what you're playing go hand in hand to produce[/quote]

Just to add to this that the ultimate goal - just like knowing how to express yourself with words - is freedom of expression - some people can say a hell of a lot with just a couple of words - others write great novels! I think the language analogy is spot on and the similarities between different styles of writing is also a good one - how does a sports journalist compare to a political one? A comedian to a novelist - etc - every musician (not just bassists) has a different way of playing exactly the same notes, the same chords, the same rhythms - there are a hundred different ways to 'say' a word - or 'play' a note. The level of mathamatical and therefore harmonic sophitication you can apply to any note can be vastly affected by your knowledge of how each note can fit into its given space - every note can potentially work anywhere but it's about understanding how and why that is that really opens up the musical posibilities available to you at any one time. Simplicity is also a good thing, but making it simple is an art in itself and one that can be refined and honed no matter how much or how little technique or harmonic knowledge you have.

M

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='698187' date='Jan 1 2010, 06:00 PM']Here's something else. When I learn a song I don't think about what the chords are. ie, I don't think, 'Right, this is A to G to C etc.' I think in patterns on the fretboard. I look at the fretboard as a grid and remember the changes as almost geometrical patterns.

I'm sure other players must do this. Am I right?[/quote]
Not wishing to be too provocative but in my mind that is a very limiting way to learn I don't think of the note names when I'm playing but I do have aural note choices in my head. I have control over my entire fretboard so can chose notes at will from various places. I don't always do that as some songs just require a set line but I think that even that is improved by having a wider scope than the job dictates. My favourite players are the ones who can totally blow the sh*t out of it all over the instrument but ditch over using that facility in favour of playing the right thing for the song. Being hugely facilitated on the instrument also makes (for good musicians) it possible for the simple things to be done as well as they can be... There are examples of shredders that overdo it all the time but to me they are not good musicians. (my personal terminology in play there)

[Doddy]

[quote name='Kev' post='698895' date='Jan 2 2010, 05:50 PM'][/quote]

Your point being........?

If you use big words that you don't understand you sound like an arse?

Maybe if he'd have had a better grasp of the language to begin with he would have
been able to say something better anyway.

[Kev]

okay someone can't take a joke....

perhaps my earlier comment was badly worded, i know exactly what i mean anyways, just clearly not transcribing my thoughts successfully.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Kev

[Doddy]

I can take a joke,but that video didn't prove much-If anything it
kind of backed up what I've been saying all along.

Oh yeah,and 'Friends' isn't funny anyway

Edited January 2, 2010 by Doddy

[originalfunkbrother]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='698200' date='Jan 1 2010, 06:12 PM']Ever since I started playing, which was about 14, I just played along to records constantly (LPs in those days). A few years into my playing I decided to have a couple of lessons, so that I could learn theory and some jazz. The first lesson was a disaster. I was playing my '83 Steinberger in those days, and the teacher looked at it and started to criticise it, saying it wasn't a real instrument. Then he said there was no need to play anything beyond the fifth fret, as every note is there. So I thought, why not just play a bass with 5 frets? He then sent me home with the cycle of fifths, without ever explaining what they meant.

I ended up badmouthing him in the shop I was working in, and someone he was teaching happened to be there and overheard this. A couple of days later I get a call from the teacher, telling me never to contact him again.

So there we have it: my one and only stab at learning theory and jazz.

By the way, he's named Tony Silver, and to this day we seriously hate each other.[/quote]

I guess part of the core problem is some of the music teachers we come across cannot help break down those walls and make students understand. I mean judging from the explanation about your music teacher, he could have found a more reasonable way to talk to you about your instrument though I dont see how it could affect your style

I believe I am in the same boat with you, I used to play with a piano player who was part classically trained, the guy knew his
beans so to speak and we had a Trio goin on. The drummer and I knew nothing much on theory but we grooved pretty funkily if I may say.

Anyway, one day the piano player was having a conversation with one of the singers and he told him that he wondered how I picked up on the stuff he played because it didnt make sense that I didnt know much theory but I was able to follow his movements and patterns.

I have come to realise that ear - training has played a major part of my development and 'feeling and grooving' has improved my style. Having said that, I still believe that learning a fair amount of theory will make me able to communicate with other musos and whilst it may not necessarily improve me but it could make me understand the 'language' a bit more than I can now.

[Pete Academy]

Nice reply, Jake. I've met Neil and seen him play. Awesome!

Bryan is an incredibly good drummer and a totally inspiring pro. I've learned a great deal by playing with him (in a professional sense, of course!). I must admit we couldn't come anywhere close to the musicianship in the H gang (Andy Schofield played with us a few years ago). However, we have developed a great rapport over the years, mainly because we're all mates, and have played in many bands together previous to Nearly Dan. I think this is important.

Also, I try to incorporate some of my own style into the songs, without deviating too far from the original. It's interesting to see Steely Dan using Freddie Washington. I'm sure he knows all his theory, being a session musician, but it's his groove that people concentrate on. When he does his solo in the band, it's mainly just a slapfest - no jazz soloing in sight.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='698892' date='Jan 2 2010, 05:44 PM']Hi Pete, I have indeed played the Dan songbook with Bryan and some other very fine musicians including Les Chisnall, Johnny Heyes, Mike Walker, Johnny Musgrave, Andy Schofield and Suzanne Higgins and in that band on vocals was the phenomenally talented Neil Fairclough, but his first instrument is bass and he is a dynamite player (ask Bryan).
It's a funny question really Pete because it's all about the player and what he or she brings. Firstly I don't consider myself to be a theory master, I simply have learned enough about it to make rehearsals quick and easily conducted, and also to enable me to convey what I want as a teacher. The whole point about theory is twofold, firstly it is a very convenient system by which musicians that want to produce music very quickly and to a very high standard can do so with a universally understood language. Secondly it is a means by which you can gather, store, and facilitate information hopefully with a view to improving and widening your abilities.
What is unusual about music in general is that people who are totally ignorant of theory can be literally brilliant and the reason for that is as you say, if your ears are good then you can learn by rote and be very authentic, original, musical etc etc (the aural tradition of learning should NOT be underestimated)
Then we turn to Steely Dan.
I had a discussion with Mike Walker about playing in H Gang, we both agreed that Steely Dan is a great band to cover and we had great fun doing it. I have to say that it was an awesome sounding band (sincerely not wanting to be competitive) And what me and Mike thought was behind that was the spirit of the membership. Every one of the people named above are very broad musicians and a few of them are world class. Each player would be comfortable in virtually any musical setting up to and including contemporary Jazz. In my mind if you accept that Becker and Fagen had two main ingredients in their output, the first being a love of Jazz and the second, the use of the best musicians available then I think you would have to agree that it follows that a cover version using the same elements would have a pretty good shot at getting the spirit right.

So thats the long answer. The short answer is: I think in the right player, knowing your sh*t playing that stuff would help. But it's worth remembering that Chuck Rainey's main USP is feel and groove. But then they did use some total masters in their field, eg Wayne Shorter.

Another point to consider is how it would have happened in the first place. There would have been Rhythm charts galore in the studio when those sessions took place and but for the existence of recorded music you wouldn't have been able to learn it in the first place.

Ok so it wasn't a short answer, which I think illustrates that this question is multi faceted and many elements of the various arguments that will be presented have validity.

I just try to sit atop it all being magnanimous and smug [/quote]

[foal30]

heh I took my '83 Steinberger to Jazz School
and they were fighting over it
and it wasn't just about stopping me playing it

is it sensible to not learn to read and write English?
if Music is a language (as opposed to strictly a "feeling")
should we not converse in as many of it's dialects as possible

theory is not to the exclusion of ear training or technique or groove or improvisation
it's one part of what can make us musical artists
arguments that imply theory hampers other aspects of musicality
have limited reality in my playing history
in fact, with near uniformity, it is the opposite the applies
those who love their instrument enough
to slog through the hard work of theory
are often the most interesting and joyful people
to participate musically with

[jakenewmanbass]

Just another thought to add to this thread, and it's an observation of principal.
The question is:
Does being (as Pete put it) pretty clueless about theory matter?
I think if you learn music that you then regurgitate for a performance it's ok, but if you learn the parts and that is it, then you are at the edge of your ability. I prefer to be well within my abilities so that I can put all my energy into something simple. To my mind it follows that with that mindset I will do the job better.

So when I learn the SD stuff, I play the songs over and over and learn them by rote and then I will mess with alternatives, then I'll learn to sing the melodies and the harmonies, then I'll check the voicings on the keys, in H Gang I also transcribed, rehearsed and performed the backing vocals, with me and 2 girl singers. I can sing all the guitar solos, I know how most of the chord sequences are spelled out in theoretical terms.
Having that complete view of the music that I'm involved in (I tend to do it with all the projects I do) makes for a sympathy with the music that I think serves to enhance my grasp of my role within it. Being honest, I love it and care about it... mainly because it gives and has given such great joy in my whole life.

So the basic human principal at the core of what I'm trying to say is another question:

Why wouldn't you want to do [i]everything[/i] as well as you possibly can?

Edited January 4, 2010 by jakesbass

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='foal30' post='700112' date='Jan 3 2010, 11:17 PM']heh I took my '83 Steinberger to Jazz School
and they were fighting over it
and it wasn't just about stopping me playing it

is it sensible to not learn to read and write English?
if Music is a language (as opposed to strictly a "feeling")
should we not converse in as many of it's dialects as possible

theory is not to the exclusion of ear training or technique or groove or improvisation
it's one part of what can make us musical artists
arguments that imply theory hampers other aspects of musicality
have limited reality in my playing history
in fact, with near uniformity, it is the opposite the applies
those who love their instrument enough
to slog through the hard work of theory
are often the most interesting and joyful people
to participate musically with

Very good reply. Er, do you mind me asking? Are you a poet?[/quote]

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='700195' date='Jan 4 2010, 02:25 AM']Just another thought to add to this thread, and it's an observation of principal.
The question is:
Does being (as Pete put it) pretty clueless about theory matter?
I think if you learn music that you then regurgitate for a performance it's ok, but if you learn the parts and that is it, then you are at the edge of your ability. I prefer to be well within my abilities so that I can put all my energy into something simple. To my mind it follows that with that mindset I will do the job better.

So when I learn the SD stuff, I play the songs over and over and learn them by rote and then I will mess with alternatives, then I'll learn to sing the melodies and the harmonies, then I'll check the voicings on the keys, in H Gang I also transcribed, rehearsed and performed the backing vocals, with me and 2 girl singers. I can sing all the guitar solos, I know how most of the chord sequences are spelled out in theoretical terms.
Having that complete view of the music that I'm involved in (I tend to do it with all the projects I do) makes for a sympathy with the music that I think serves to enhance my grasp of my role within it. Being honest, I love it and care about it... mainly because it gives and has give such great joy in my whole life.

So the basic human principal at the core of what I'm trying to say is another question:

Why wouldn't you want to do [i]everything[/i] as well as you possibly can?[/quote]

Good reply again, Jake. I too care about the music, and that helps. We've just re-learned Aja, Babylon Sisters, and Caves Of Altamira. I try to put enough of 'myself' in the parts to make it more enjoyable, but without detracting from the songs.

As for doing everything...well I think I'm a bit long in the tooth. And as Steven Wright once said: 'You can't have everything. Besides, where would you put it?

[Rayman]

I know no theory at all, none. I started playing bass in the early 80's and taught myself by playing along to the Stranglers at first, then onto Talking Heads etc, all learnt by ear. I'm now 44, and learn the sets for the band the same way, totally by ear, it's the only way I can do it, forget TABs, they mean nothing to me, let alone charts, but give me the song on an iPod to listen to, and I'll have it sussed in minutes (most of the time).

I see in the interview with Stuart Zender in the new BGM he says he sees shapes on the fretboard rather than notes.....well that's me exactly, I just remember the shapes on the board for each song, I really haven't a clue what notes I'm playing most of the time.

[jakenewmanbass]

As I said in an earlier post, learning by ear should not be underestimated, it is after all the immediate connection to the music, whereas in the written form it is once removed.
Ultimately one is not better than the other but both will serve you well in many (especially pro) circumstances.
Pete I totally get that you love what you're doing and I can see that you have the ability to put some of yourself into the music (if you think about that, it's impossible not to)
the only point at which I disagree is your suggestion that you're too long in the tooth, never! What I think is important is that you are able to do the job and do it well, with or without theory and whether you were to expand your wider knowledge is a matter of pure choice.

[Bilbo]

I am not going to say too much on this because I get irritated by anyone that advocates ignorance in favour of knowledge - it just doesn't compute. For me, the theory allows you to be a musician and not just a bass player.

I love music more than almost anything and cannot get by without it. I love everything to do with it and have done since I was about 10. Why wouldn't I want to know theory? Why wouldn't I want to learn to read the dots? The only thing that stops me from spending every waking hour musiking is the fact that our society doesn't value it as much as I do so forces me to earn a living another way.

I have played Aja cold from a chart. I strongly suspect it wasn't as good as it would have been had the players involved rehearsed it for days but it hung together. Same with Fagen's 'The Goodbye Look'. I have played shows and big band gigs reading every note from a page and done whole gigs where I didn't know a single tune but busked the whole thing. You get the widest basket of skills you can to make you ready for the fray. It keeps you sharp.

[Toddy]

Hey Pete,,
I believe Im in much the same boat,,
I tried to learn theory early on in my playing career and never got round to using it really,,
99%of the time I get asked to learn a track, learn it by ear and remember the pattern on the fretboard,,However I am good enough to deal with the change the key situation and have no issues with busking or jamming along to any track..
If anything still isnt right it gets sorted out in rehearsal

Im trying to learn to read again but TBH in the last 20yrs Ive never been given sheet music to read and it wont happen with my current bands or when I get asked to guest in the studio.

I also play in a well known tribute and am passionate about doing justice to the songs, But in answer to your original question, suppose its what you need it for,, I personally couldnt sit in an orchestra pit next week,, but that guy probably couldnt bounce around on stage at Butlins......

Strangely a lot of my past playing buddies have gone into teaching music and music tech at colleges etc,but Im still the only one who brings home the bacon by actually playing live.

Saying that I am genuinely interested in learning more,,and considering how much time I spend on here these days,,, guess Im running out of excuses....

[Doddy]

[quote name='Toddy' post='700271' date='Jan 4 2010, 10:27 AM']But in answer to your original question, suppose its what you need it for,, I personally couldnt sit in an orchestra pit next week,, but that guy probably couldnt bounce around on stage at Butlins......[/quote]

.........Yes I could,and do.